Talk:Low-pressure area/GA3
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Viennaiswaiting in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article passed GAN the first time, and was then delisted because the person who put the article up for reassessment didn't have the time or energy to point out specific problems with the article, merely general ones which I found hard to comprehend. To whoever reviews this article, be clear on what is wrong with the article so it can be fixed. It's frustrating to have an article dropped from GA status while timely efforts are being made for its improvement. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a shot at reviewing it (to remove some of the backlog)... the writing is good, sometimes a bit too technical. what is more pressing is the subject matter (criteria 3). here is what stands out.
- A low pressure area, or "low", is a region where the atmospheric pressure at sea level is lower in relation to surrounding locations
- that's the opening sentence. I think there could be a different phrasing for "is lower", since you already say low earlier in the sentence. maybe "...pressure at sea level is less than surrounding locations", more succinct?
- Dealt with. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- that's the opening sentence. I think there could be a different phrasing for "is lower", since you already say low earlier in the sentence. maybe "...pressure at sea level is less than surrounding locations", more succinct?
- The name for the process concerning the formation of low pressure areas is known as cyclogenesis.
- 3rd sentence: it's a bit wordy for my taste. maybe "...the formation process of a low pressure area is known as cyclogenesis", something like that?
- Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- 3rd sentence: it's a bit wordy for my taste. maybe "...the formation process of a low pressure area is known as cyclogenesis", something like that?
- The 4th sentence is rather long: could that be split at all? it's a bit too long has too many prepositions.
- Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph is also long and technical. maybe "A specific type of low pressure area is a thermal low, which form due to etc."
- Made an attempt at simplification/clarification. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- In the formation section, you should link Rossby Wave the first time, since I checked that section before reading the top of the page.
- One thing I am confused about is what exactly constitutes a low-pressure area, as in the scope of the article. The first sentence of the entire page makes me think it's any region where the pressure is lower than outside areas, but then you go into cyclogenesis and whatnot. Is a low-pressure area a cyclone of any sort? If not, what makes it different? There is a large section on cyclogenesis, but it seems to deal only with the formation of other cyclones.
- Clarified that the term cyclone is a synonym for a low pressure area. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- If it's a synonym, then why is there a separate article on cyclone? shouldn't there only be one article between the two? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is a good question. Cyclone appears to be the more technical term, and low pressure area is the more generic, so you'd think it would be one article rather than two. Low pressure area is defined as pressure-based, while cyclone is defined as wind-based, so there is a subtle difference in their definitions, even if it is hard to have cyclonic-type winds without a low pressure area present, at least at ground level. Some meteorological terms (polar cyclone, tropical cyclone, subtropical cyclone) use the term cyclone preferentially over low, while other terms (thermal low and kona low) tend to use the low pressure area moniker more. The more importance difference may be that low pressure areas refer to purely surface-based features, while the cyclone term can also used for "low pressure areas" aloft (mid to upper-level cyclone, closed cyclone) in addition to surface systems. I treat cyclone as the more expansive term, with low pressure systems a subset of cyclones. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- ok, I think I get it. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is a good question. Cyclone appears to be the more technical term, and low pressure area is the more generic, so you'd think it would be one article rather than two. Low pressure area is defined as pressure-based, while cyclone is defined as wind-based, so there is a subtle difference in their definitions, even if it is hard to have cyclonic-type winds without a low pressure area present, at least at ground level. Some meteorological terms (polar cyclone, tropical cyclone, subtropical cyclone) use the term cyclone preferentially over low, while other terms (thermal low and kona low) tend to use the low pressure area moniker more. The more importance difference may be that low pressure areas refer to purely surface-based features, while the cyclone term can also used for "low pressure areas" aloft (mid to upper-level cyclone, closed cyclone) in addition to surface systems. I treat cyclone as the more expansive term, with low pressure systems a subset of cyclones. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- If it's a synonym, then why is there a separate article on cyclone? shouldn't there only be one article between the two? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Clarified that the term cyclone is a synonym for a low pressure area. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- The sources look good, and it seems neutral, stable, and has images. mostly you should clarify what the article should be on. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've addressed your initial concerns. Let me know what else needs to be fixed/clarified. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for addressing those concerns. one other thing (aside from cyclone/low-pressure area article stuff), the end of the "Formation" section has a metric unit: could you add a conversion for mph? Also, in the tropical cyclone section, could you make the sentence on the months a little neater? It has a "while September" and "whilst November", and seems rather long-winded (pun intended). Viennaiswaiting (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Believe I resolved the new set of issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for addressing those concerns. one other thing (aside from cyclone/low-pressure area article stuff), the end of the "Formation" section has a metric unit: could you add a conversion for mph? Also, in the tropical cyclone section, could you make the sentence on the months a little neater? It has a "while September" and "whilst November", and seems rather long-winded (pun intended). Viennaiswaiting (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've addressed your initial concerns. Let me know what else needs to be fixed/clarified. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
ok, I think it passes the ga criteria. it may be a bit technical in places, but nothing too confusing imo. I'll pass this as a good article, then. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)