Talk:Cumulus cloud/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, two to three paragraphs is appropriate, per WP:LEAD.

   Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • The University of Richmond external link is dead.

   Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Not required for GA status, but what makes it necessary for Towering cumulus cloud to have its own article?

   I'm not certain why it had that title, but I've moved it to Cumulus congestus cloud to go along with all the other cumulus cloud species which have articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Description, skew is a dab link.

   I've disambiguated it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Subforms - Is there any information on the relative frequency with which these various forms are seen? Compared to each other or to other cloud formations?

   I've never seen any research or discussion on the relative frequencies of the subforms of any cloud species. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Relation to other clouds - I'm a little confused as to why its necessary to summarize all of these other cloud types (everything after the introductory paragraph of this section). Isn't it enough to mention them, and only expand into details if the information is specifically relevant to the topic of the article, in this case cumulus clouds? When writing, say, a plant article, we do not give every other species within the genus its own section - we simply mention other important ones and only expand on the topic if there is an important comparison to be made that gives the reader additional information specifically on the plant species the article is supposed to be discussing.

   • Only ten cloud genera exist: Cumulus, stratocumulus, stratus, cirrostratus, cirrus, cirrocumulus, altocumulus, altostratus, nimbostratus, and cumulonimbus. These are grouped into three families, cirriform, cumuliform, and stratiform. Information on the other cloud genera in the parent family of the cloud genus being described was requested in the cirrus cloud FAC. To keep the article structures similar, I am also including it here. Furthermore, every cloud genus is important for weather and climatic analyses. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Fair enough. I still personally think it's unnecessary, but if it's what was asked for at FAC, then it's best to keep the articles consistent. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The bibliography appears to be alphabetical except for the first entry. Is there a reason for this discrepancy?

   • I used to not know the author of the book (it isn't on the cover of my copy), so I had originally alphabetized it by its title. I've fixed that now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • You should probably also change ref #38 (Audubon 2000, p. 448), so that it points to the author name? Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

   Agreed and done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Not required for GA status, but it would be nice if the name format was standardized in the bibliography (some entries are currently last, first, while others are first last).

   I think this is fixed now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Ref #2, 11 needs a publisher

   • I've added metadata for #2. #11 seems to have died, so I'm replacing it.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • This looks like it's still in the article? Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

   I've found a replacement now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Ref #5 - what is AAAS? Please spell out acronyms.

   I've fixed the reference into the bibliographic format used for all the other references. AAAS has been removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • What makes Ref #10 (Cloud streets) a reliable source?

   • It is written by pilots (albeit likely amateurs), so, for the purpose of citing information related to wind patterns and aviation, it appears to be reliable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • I'm not convinced. The "about us" page talks about "aviation enthusiasts" which could be a 12 year old kid sitting in his bedroom. I don't see anything about author attribution, fact checking, expert authors, etc... Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

   Ah, I see now. I've replaced it with citations to reliable sources, mainly Weston. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

   • What makes Ref #19, 43 (Cloud atlas) a reliable source?

   • It isn't—it's a user-generated website, and it is factually inaccurate. I replaced the references to it with reliable sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   • I still see one reference to this. Now Ref #22. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

   I've nailed that one too now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • See comments on final section included in prose review, above.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Overall a nice article, but a few issues related to prose, referencing and focus. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Due to real life time constraints (college), I'll probably only have time to clean these issues up over the weekend. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The work so far looks good. I still have a few minor concerns related to sources - see my replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good to me, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Very nice work - thanks for sticking with it! Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)