Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weather front/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:21, 12 February 2008.

Weather front

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is a very good article, and meets all criteria. Juliancolton ^{(The Giants Win!)} 17:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently titled in the plural, which doesn't seem correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could be easy enough to fix. I don't know if that would affect stability to move the page, though. Juliancolton ^{(The Giants Win!)} 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, best to go ahead and move it and correct the FAC links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Juliancolton ^{(The Giants Win!)} 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object for now; this still needs some work. First, drawings from the side of a cold front, warm front, occluded front, and stationary front are really important. The current warm front picture doesn't show much, and the representation of clouds isn't well done. Show what kinds of clouds are on each side of the front, and how far ahead (cirrus far to the right of a cold front, progressing downward to cumulonimbus, etc.). I'm talking about something along the lines of [1] or [2] or [3]. Without these images, the entire concept requires much more effort to understand. Second, the language needs work. For example, under "Surface weather analysis", the last three sentences jump from an explanation of general symbols to an unknown category of "various symbols" used for local weather to areas of precipitation determining where fronts are found. These thoughts don't seem to be connected at all. Third, add some external links that might be helpful. Finally, I suggest that you find more print references, such as meteorology textbooks. They will have more discussion about these phenomena and will be able to give more detail that can be incorporated into the article. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added pictures, copyedited somewhat, added external links and a bibliography section which includes the only textbook I could find. Is it any better? Juliancolton Talk 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now. Organizationally, the article is confusing; it mentions cold, warm, and occluded fronts first, but then it introduces a movement section, then continues with other front descriptions, with a precipitation section sprinkled in. Additionally, the sections are short; they need slightly more flesh to them (for example, expand the cold front section to have about half of the material in cold front). Also, the image in the lede introduces several types of fronts that are described on the page, but the page does not mention surface throughs at all, and they are mentioned as #5 in the page. Overall, more details are needed, although it is a good start. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed those issues about the organization. However, IMO, the reason that the sections are short is because this is the main article. For further, more in-depth information, one can go to the sub-article. Thus, this article should give enough info for the average person to read it, and get the basic idea of what it is they are reading about. If you feel it is needed that there be more info, I can certainly add more. Juliancolton (Talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the thing; it's not readily apparent that the article is the main article, and it is missing {{main}} templates in several sections, in that case. Still, I think that more info would be better to satisfy WP:SUMMARY concerns. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, now that the {{Main}}s are there, what do you think? Juliancolton (Talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.