Talk:Wind shear

message: Added references and a couple sections regarding wind shear's effects on thunderstorm formation and tropical cyclones.  Thegreatdr 16:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is good enough for B class.  If not, useful comments for it reaching B class would be appreciated.  Thegreatdr 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good article!  I'm going to send it to WP:GAN. -Runningonbrains 12:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial efforts to organize article

message: I'm afraid that the writing in this article isn't really up to GA standard. The second paragraph in the lead is a very blank summary of the main headlines, with no variation in sentence structure and no common theme tying the statements together. The section on when and where wind shear is observed really ought to be in prose form rather than in bullet points. And the final three sections have only two sentences each, which really leads to the suspicion that they could do with some expansion.
Please feel free to resubmit once these points have been addressed. MLilburne 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: The downburst definition doesn't seem to match the link to the downburst article. --Gbleem 11:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  downburst 

message: I started cleaning up this article, and the more I did, the more work I found. First, the lede does not fully define and develop the subject. The article also needs further development, as it focuses heavily on aviation aspects, and does not cover other areas much. Also, it fails to compare and contrast high vs. low level and vertical vs. horizontal wind shear. More research and references are also needed. Dhaluza 11:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  This article isn't close to GA yet.  Last time I edited the article, I did not fully comprehend the concept of a wikipedia lead.  Thegreatdr 11:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead has been completely reorganized per the new information included from wind gradient and the cleanup tag has been removed.  Thegreatdr 13:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: Now that it appears that wind gradient has little chance of being merged in with this article, and the details in the lead fit the article below, I've nominated it anew for GA.  Thegreatdr 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job cleaning the article up and recasting it in summary style. I would suggest you address the two specific suggestions above to cover convergence zone and shear line (meterology) as well. Also some additional references would be good, for example the lead as well as the "Definition", "Weather fronts" and "Thermal wind" sections have no inline cites. Good luck with the GA nom. Dhaluza 14:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added inline references to definition, weather fronts, and thermal wind sections.  Thegreatdr 04:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Have rewritten the article to be more easily understood.  Removed the duplicate links from the see also section as well.  Also added links to paragraphs where links were missing.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated again for GA

message: ====On Hold====
This article passes a lot of criteria, and based on the references, it appears to be correct too. However:
# In my opinion the article is not layman-friendly. It relies too much on jargon much of which needs to be explained to consider this article accessible and well-written.
#  At the time I reviewed this at the start of the month, at least two paragraphs were not referenced. (If a reference convers all the text in a section, either refer to it multiple times or put it at the far bottom). 
# I also think that the lead should be referenced for people who read that as a summary and go no further as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
#  The "see also" section is overloaded with duplicate links from elsewhere in the article.
#  In the "effects on tropical cyclones"-section it says "in the direction of the shear". If wind shear is a difference windspeed or direction - let's say it's strong west 5 here and weak north 1 a couple of miles south - then what is the direction of the shear? I think that's impossible to say without laying down the rules or clarifying what you have already. - Mgm|(talk) 21:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have rewritten the article to be more easily understood.  Removed the duplicate links from the see also section as well.  Also added links to paragraphs where links were missing.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GAC

message: This article passes a lot of criteria, and based on the references, it appears to be correct too. However:
# In my opinion the article is not layman-friendly. It relies too much on jargon much of which needs to be explained to consider this article accessible and well-written.
#  At the time I reviewed this at the start of the month, at least two paragraphs were not referenced. (If a reference convers all the text in a section, either refer to it multiple times or put it at the far bottom). 
# I also think that the lead should be referenced for people who read that as a summary and go no further as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
#  The "see also" section is overloaded with duplicate links from elsewhere in the article.
#  In the "effects on tropical cyclones"-section it says "in the direction of the shear". If wind shear is a difference windspeed or direction - let's say it's strong west 5 here and weak north 1 a couple of miles south - then what is the direction of the shear? I think that's impossible to say without laying down the rules or clarifying what you have already. - Mgm|(talk) 21:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have rewritten the article to be more easily understood.  Removed the duplicate links from the see also section as well.  Also added links to paragraphs where links were missing.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Hold

message: *The "effects on tropical cyclones"-section is still too complicated. I've asked for a second opinion on the word usage. -- Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second opinion

message: GAC has passed on this article. Congrats. Juliancolton (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wind shear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Windshear.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Wind shear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080118235955/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/weather/features/understanding/jetstreams_uk.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/jetstreams_uk.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wind shear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009144924/http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/wind_shear.html to http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/wind_shear.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wind shear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121051137/http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/spring06/trex.jsp to http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/spring06/trex.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The atmospheric science community uses define "horizontal shear" and "vertical shear" in terms of the direction for the velocity gradient. In other parts of sciences and mathematics (e.g., fluid dynamics, continuum mechanics, conformable mapping, etc.), the the direction of shear refers to the orientation of the shear plane, not the velocity gradient. I am not not suggesting a change in definition, but simply a note to indicate that "horizontal shear" and "vertical shear" are used in a different sense in atmospheric sciences. I leave this as a suggestion, and defer to those who have invested in creating this wiki page. 
----MuTau (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification regarding the direction of shear 

message: Should not "tailwind" be substituted for "headwind" in the section "Impact on passenger aircraft", as it is a tailwind that increases the speed of an aircraft I believe. Krok6kola (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headwind vs. tailwind 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.vpnavy.com/vp17mem_28jun98.html http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hurr/grow/home.rxml. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: A GAR will be initiated in seven days if nobody expresses a willingness to correct the following major issues and any potential further ones.
*There are areas needing citations as well as different sources since verification failed.
*There seems to be more topics and newer sources discussing windshear here
*The article seems quite unbalanced with most of it discussing vertical wind shear.
Noah, AATalk 01:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR Notice