Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wind/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:48, 27 June 2009 [1].

Wind edit

Nominator(s): Thegreatdr (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because...I have spent months upgrading it from Start/C class, and I think that this article is very important to wikipedia, since it is one you'd find in any encyclopedia. It has gone through a peer review process, but there wasn't much feedback, unfortunately. Also, it has taken me many months to get over the shock of my last couple FAC processes, and finally feel emotionally ready for another one. Or so I think. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick-skim driveby comments without reading the whole thing
Most of those images are forced way too large (and most – other than the maps and diagrams – don't show any particular detail so don't need to be forced at all)
The Plotting on surface weather maps section needs globalising; neither it, nor its "parent" article at Station model, mention any country other than the US, and every source is talking about US usage. – iridescent 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And so it begins. Station model does talk about Great Britain, oddly enough. Despite that, I'll take your suggestion and shrink the image size to 200 px, which will hopefully address that concern. Think you can point me to a more global reference for the plotting of wind onto weather maps? Last I checked, the US had a similar format to other countries (including Japan and Great Britain). I'd be very appreciative of whatever further help you can provide. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding station model, honestly, I don't know (although some of The Hurricane Crowd will no doubt be along soon, who will presumably know; if it's used globally, there's no need to single out the US ("In the United States, the change to the modern convention of flags…"); if the US was atypical until this change (or became atypical because of it), the circumstances ought to be spelled out. Regarding the images, I can't see a need for forced image widths at all, other than on the lead image and the maps/charts, but wait & see what others say.
And note that this isn't an oppose, just a comment… – iridescent 22:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and appreciate your feedback. I removed the line regarding the United States change in practices regarding the station model. The last time I went through FAC for the List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States, there was a comment that all the images needed to be the same size throughout the article. That's why I've done the same through this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the "Bible" section need to be in the article at all? It just seems dubious to single out one holy book and make an entire section that consists of quotes where it mentions wind. Artichoker[talk] 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that subsection could be merged in Ancient religions, and as it's also in the History section, 'Events where its influence changed history' could be changed to something like 'Influence on historical events', per the MOS. Cenarium (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The bible section has been removed and the historical events section has been reworded and merged per your suggestions. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, congratulations for having substantially worked on this important article. I'll comment mainly on the subject of the section 'Outgasing from objects in space': I think the section name is a little too obscure for most readers, would 'wind in space/outer space' be an accurate description, or could it be expanded to that subject ? Further, outgassing (also, outgassing is the most frequent spelling according to google) is not described in that section, I think at least a link to outgassing should be given (if it remains). Winds in space, in particular on other planets, may deserve a more comprehensive description, in this section, as readers may wonder if there are winds on other planets, and if they are formed and behave in the same or similar way (when a planet has a sufficient atmosphere, they are created by differences of density between regions, I guess). A more consequent introduction in that section and a few links, with some references, should suffice (not going so far as evoking things like "intergalactic winds", of course ;). It's also not clear in the section 'planetary' what are hydrodynamic winds, is it those ? To give a few relevant links, extraterrestrial winds are mentioned in Extraterrestrial atmospheres, for planets particularly in Neptune, and I also see that HD 189733 b is linked in weather. On another note, maybe the external links section should link to Commons:Wind, I let you decide how you want it, {{commons}}, {{commons-inline}} or else. I'm sensible to the abuse of sister links, but commons is generally worth it, and it has some good media on Wind, decently presented. Cenarium (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've attempted to address your concerns by simplifying the title and adding a new section concerning winds on other planets within our solar system. I checked out that extra-solar system planet you mentioned, and its article mentions nothing about wind, so I do not see any information which would be relevant for this article. Hydrodynamic winds are actually described in the sentence where the term is used. Do you think the wording could be clarified better? If so, how? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know that subject, but imo, the way hydrodynamic winds are introduced may be ambiguous: two new types of wind are introduced in that section, solar and planetary, and it's not clear whether hydrodynamic winds are simply normal winds (those discussed since the beginning of the article) with the distinctive effect to move up hydrogen, so which defines them; or a new kind of wind, with that particular effect. That exoplanet HD_189733_b is noted in weather, as having the strongest planetary winds discovered, and they are mentioned in this section, but that may not be worth mentioning, may be too specific. The new section on wind on other planets looks good, informative.
        • Thanks for the comments. The hydrodynamic wind in the upper portion of the atmosphere, from what I understand, ultimately allows for the escape of gases into space, which is the planetary wind. Therefore, the first process aids and abets the second. The winds mentioned on the extrasolar planet rely on assumptions, and haven't been measured like those on the solar system planets have via probes, so it would probably be best to leave it out, for now. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm fine with that. Could an article be potentially made on planetary winds, is it worth a redlink ? Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done, although it is a redirect to atmospheric escape, since they are the same thing. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the comprehensiveness: the article doesn't discuss specific examples of winds, I added List of local winds in the see also section (as well as wind wave and the 'four winds'), and (although it needs some work), it contains some particular winds with relatively developed articles like Santa Ana winds, Shamal (wind), Tramontane, Mistral (wind), and Monsoon. I believe that the subject of particular winds is important, some have a strong significance (and enduring influence on the civilization, sometimes on a large scale), and deserve to be discussed in the article, with a few mentioned, maybe in a section.
        • Addressed this concern. Many local winds are now mentioned within the mountain effects and desert dust migration sections, with a new paragraph concerning upslope and downslope winds now existing within the mountain effects section. Lines concerning the monsoon now exist within the newly-renamed tropics section within the global climatology section. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder if the subject of the influence of the wind on civilizations, already well-documented, couldn't be expanded further, or present a larger overview. The introduction of local winds could participate, as they influenced the culture of some societies, and this is documented in several of those articles. This influence is also visible in that wind is frequently present in 'popular' culture and fiction, which could warrant a rapid overview (although that may be better served in a separate article, but I heard it's a sensitive subject at AFD and not only, so just an idea).
      • I also have concerns around the general organization and dynamics of sections, I'll try to comment on this later. A suggestion: the effect of the wind on fire could be mentioned in the section Related damage, with Wildfires. There were some linking incoherences, most have been addressed. References 43 and 10 are not formatted (search for "[ht" in the main body). I adjusted and added some internal links in the references, but there doesn't seem to be any common way to link in the footnoted references, so I chose to link the first instance of relevant links among footnotes, and only. Do you concur with that ? Cenarium (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a paragraph on wind on wildfires per your suggestion. As for wikilinks within the refs, only wikilinking the first instance is probably best...it would limit the size of the overall page. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The third section, Plotting on surface weather maps, looks a little specialized, and isn't used in the latter sections, does it really deserve a section ? Or could it be merged into another section perhaps for example in Scales, so as to form a 'representation and scales'/'scales and representation' section. Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Dealt with. I merged to the two sections into one now called "meteorological use". Is this too broad of a title? Thegreatdr (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll refer to your judgment for those final calls. The article has become much more comprehensive, and I think it satisfies the criteria I'm in measure of judging. So, support. Cenarium (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have had a readthrough of this article - evreything seems to make sense and i think it meets the critera. Jason Rees (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit long at 75KB perhaps? Stifle (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains 5,365 words of prose, which is safely below the 10,000-word recommended limited. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed in other FACs (such as tropical cyclone) that the wikipedia cite web reference requirement can take up a significant amount of space in articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check dablinks... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue has been resolved. This also helped out with finding duplicate occurrences of wikilinks within the article. Another pass was made through the article to remove extra wikilinks. The singular dead link has also been resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Exeter-20may44.jpg has an incorrect license tag. Its description says crown copyright, but it is tagged GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there's a comprehensiveness problem around the effect of wind on animals. The existing section Effect on flying animals has only one sentence describing the effect of wind on animals, followed by two sentences describing the effect of animals on weather radar. The cited reference is a university press release, which doesn't inspire confidence that a broad view of the subject is being taken. The opening phrase "Insects, also known as arthropods..." is inaccurate. The phrase "birds follow their own course" is misleading; a quick Google search tells me that migratory birds are known to exploit prevailing winds, and on a smaller scale, I'm sure local wind patterns strongly affect gliding flight.

    Then there's the effect of wind on non-flying animals. Wind speed, in the form of windchill, is important to large, warm-blooded animals in cold environments. I'm thinking of penguins huddling against the wind. Wind also affects whether or not a predator detects an odor plume from its prey.

    Browsing through textbooks and review articles in biology would probably turn up a lot more material. WikiProject Ecology could probably help with this area. Melchoir (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I fixed the problems you noted with insects and birds, and have included its impact on other animals, such as sheep and cattle, as well as foraging, hunting, and defensive strategies. The penguin behavior you noted is more about cold than wind, but luckily I found a source which also mentions wind. Let me know if that is enough information on the topic...I'm worried about the article becoming too large, as it has gained about 15 kb since its nomination for FAC. Thank you for your input. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, nice turnaround! I think that's probably enough of a sampling on animals. If significantly more material were added to the animal subsection, it could be exported into a sub-article (Ecology of wind, perhaps?), and the comprehensiveness of sub-articles shouldn't block a FAC. I understand that article size is a concern, but while you're at it, perhaps you could also flesh out the effects on plants? There's already wind dispersal but that feels lonely without wind pollination (anemophily). Also perhaps some mention of adverse effects (exposure tree line, windthrow). Melchoir (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your new issues have been tackled, and I also added a line concerning pruning of plants near the shore. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encyclopedia Mythica (pantheon.org) is an award-winning internet encyclopedia, which sounds like a reliable source to me. Theoi.com quotes the original classical texts for its website. The scientific blogging source is an actual news story, and news stories have been used in past articles as reliable sources (it's not a blog entry). Northern woodlands.org is a site of an educational organization, which should make it a reliable source. Earthsci.org is sponsored by the Geological society of Australia. Solarviews.com is sponsored by NASA. The other websites can seem more flaky though, even if a couple of them are considered, or are hoping to become, academic websites and one is a dictionary (which I would have thought would be fine). I'll see if I can find suitable replacements for those 5. Spelled out the acronyms and italicized the newspaper/journal titles, per your request. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We need a bit better than "sounds like a reliable source to me" Are you finding those awards for Mythica from their own site or from others? Okay, so theoi quotes the originals, what makes their interpretation correct? We need to know who is behind them. If the scientificblogging source is a newssource, I'd prefer to see it from a news organization? Alternatively, we can show that the news information on the scientificblooging site is considered reliable by other news organizations. On the educational organization, we need to know what makes them reliable. On the two sponsored by sites, sponsoring doesn't make them reliable. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.--Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know what? This is nuts. There is no way I'm going to be able to determine all you're asking of me concerning these websites as sources. I would think it would be common sense if NASA, etcetera, were sponsoring a web site that they would consider them reliable. But you're right. This is wikipedia, and common sense rarely matters here. I've spent 10+ hours editing the article per the previous FAC comments, and this is getting tiring. I can't even prove to you that journal articles are as reliable are you're asking of me for those other websites. In fact, I know the opposite has been true in the past, particularly within scientific journals. But you know what? That doesn't matter to wikipedia. Why comment on the prose, when it's the minutia of the references that is clearly more important? I will try to replace all of those references, per your command, my leige. And I'm sorry about this outburst, but I'm doing all this editing, and only a couple of the previous comments up this thread have been followed up upon from those that made them, so I don't even know if the edits I'm making are actually improving the article. I'm just frustrated. I'm sorry I'm taking this out on you. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know its frustrating, but yes, it's Wikipedia. We need to fulfill WP:RS and WP:SPS, which are the basics for any wikipedia article. The journal articles get covered because they are published by reliable scientific publishers, thus they fulfil WP:RS. The same goes for newspapers by mainstream newspapers, etc. I do my own share of FACs, so I can understand that it's frustrating. On the gods/etc. I'll try to find time this afternoon to source the information to some printed books I own, which will solve those problems. Where I don't have information is on the scientific stuff, so I can't help you there. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for your help and understanding, especially if you own printed media which can be used as references concerning ancient mythology. I'll replace the science information references; maybe I own some books which can be used instead. I replaced the first one from your list already. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Gods have been sourced to a printed work published by Facts on File. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • All the other refs have been replaced. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I"m still waiting on the other unstruck issues with the refs to be addressed. (As a side note, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I haven't bothered with unstriking and then restriking my comments above, but you might want to remember that in the future.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The other concerns should now be addressed. All the acronyms should be gone from the references (unless I missed one and didn't realize it), the references for de Souza and the Elk hunting book have been fixed (the author was there but the reference coding was slightly off). Where the author info and publisher info are the same, I've made the publisher the author. A number of cite webs were converted into cite books, which allowed page number locations to be clearer within the refs. This does differ from the cite journal format, however, If you notice any others, please comment further. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed that problem a few days ago, according to that link. When I hit dablinks in the toolbox a minute ago, all I get is a blank page. Which ones do you see still remaining in the article? The dablink link was incorrect. Fixed it, along with the two remaining disambiguation links. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a summary of what's happenned with this FAC so far this past week. I have expanded the article by 25-30%, and appear to have fulfilled several editors requirements, both in regards to expanding its content and the references used. I've removed the disambiguation wikilinks (twice) and the one red/dead reference link. The one issue that remains is whether or not wind's effect on civilization needs a fuller treatment within this article. Any opinions? Is there anything else that needs to be done? So far, there is one support vote (made prior to most of the significant content changes), no opposes, and a bunch of comments/requests, which have been apparently been fulfilled. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it now says all that needs to be said, although it could maybe warrant a mention of early windmills in the "Power" subsection; I appreciate that it's all covered at Wind power, but at present the section as written gives the impression that wind power is a new technology and used only for electricity generation, which obviously isn't the case. – iridescent 15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. A paragraph concerning the history of windmills was added to the article, per your request. Also, per Cenarium's request, a couple lines concerning the Khamsin wind's influence on a couple historical events have been added. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great article on the whole. Major kudos to the nominator for taking on such an extensive and important project. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great article. igordebraga ≠ 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations are inconsistent: some are first name last name; others are last name, first name. I also suspect the {{main}} template is misapplied several times. The main template is used when this article is a summary of the other aticle. When that is not the case, another template should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I have made the appropriate fixes. Thank you for the clarification on the see also/main template issue. Let me know what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Looks good. --Anhamirak 01:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wind/archive1&oldid=1078809506"