Jump to content

Talk:National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNational Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 20, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the National Weather Service Central Illinois once used kites to measure data in the atmosphere?

Name of the article

[edit]

The official name of this office is the National Weather Service Forecast Office, Lincoln, Illinois. Of course, this is a clumsy name for a wikipedia article. I appreciate the compromise used in the article's name, but a shorter name might be more useful, such as Central Illinois weather forecast office or Lincoln, Illinois weather forecast office. The fact that it is part of the National Weather Service can be embedded within the main article and doesn't particularly need to be in the lead. Thoughts? Thegreatdr (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yah since this pages inception I have struggled with the naming. This is the very first article for a WFO, too my knowledge hence there was no pre-established naming convention or project guideline. I went between either National Weather Service Forecast Office, Lincoln, Illinois, National Weather Service Lincoln and National Weather Service Central Illinois. I choose the later as it was a simplified title, and is used on here. I also chose that name due to the changing location of the main NWS office from Springfield to Peoria to Lincoln hence Central Illinois. I don't much like "Central Illinois weather forecast office" or "Lincoln, Illinois weather forecast office" as this could literally mean a host of things, such as a local tv station who does weather, or an independent forecast office. I think the best solution would be to use National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois as that seems to conform with the precedent with other WFOs. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That last one would be best, since it fits in with other WFO articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


To Work On list (specifics)

[edit]
  • 2b: Reference 8 is unreliable.
  • Not sure what happened to that ref but it would seem that the part of it that was important to the article got removed and is now pay-per view. I did however cite the NWS history page, which has basically the same info. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Ok, we can leave it for now as we are sourcing the article, not the site there. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2b: ISBN's for those books?
 Done Understandable, if it is found, it would be nice to have them. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3b: Opertaions is really short, and does not have that much detail. Room to expand.
 Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3a: is it possible to say any major events that the service has covered?
  • Yes it is possible, however due to the history of NWS Lincoln and its predecessors there are almost too many incidents to cover without it turning out like WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is probably more akin to a article on the climatology of Central Illinois (which I would like to create). But if you can shoot me an idea about how to include it I will be more then happy to add the information. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking more just some of the major ones (with a breif overview), and then when you create the article, you can put the main article template up. Is this possible? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! I will get on it right now. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new section with the information you have requested, listing storms that NWS Lincoln or its predecessors have a documented role in forecasting or other duties. I hope you find it acceptable. thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 15:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This is short enough for the artice, but not too short. I like it :) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Please do not change the status of the criterion, the reviewer will change that their selfs.

I'm not sure the word many should be used in relation to flooding in Illinois from tropical cyclones. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]