Jump to content

Talk:Quantitative precipitation forecast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleQuantitative precipitation forecast 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
February 9, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 4, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that quantitative precipitation forecasts are issued up to five days into the future within the United States by the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center?

GA nom

[edit]

I'm not going to sign up to review this at the moment because I'm involved in too many other things, but I want to remark that at the moment the quality of writing is not up to GA standards. I'll illustrate using the first few sentences of the lead:

  • The Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (abbreviated QPF) is the expected amount of liquid precipitation accumulated over a specified time period over a specified area.
Liquid? That means that snow doesn't count. I somehow doubt that that's what you wanted to say.
  • A QPF will be specified when a measurable precipitation type reaching a minimum threshold is forecast for any hour during a QPF valid period.
I really don't understand this sentence, but one thing it clearly says is that if it isn't going to rain or snow, then no QPF will be specified. But what does "will be specified" mean? What is a "QPF valid period"?
  • Precipitation forecasts tend to be bound by synoptic hours such as 0000, 0600, 1200 and 1800 GMT.
Tend to be? How is "tend to be" different from "are"? And what are "synoptic hours"? Clearly this is some kind of highly technical usage.

And all of this even though NDFD gives a perfectly clear and easily understandable definition of the term.

Mark Twain said that one of the rules of good writing is to use the right word, not its second cousin. This article violates that rule a few dozen times. It is written in a sort of bureaucratese that can hardly be understood by ordinary humans. An article on a topic like this ought to be understandable by an intelligent high school student. Sorry to be harsh, but I think in the long run it will benefit you to get this message as quickly and clearly as possible. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the wording a bit. Since I specify what the synoptic hours are, how much more clarification is needed in that line? The NDFD definition was nearly identical to the one you said was in the lead previously, so I don't see how it can be both perfectly understandable AND high technical, bureaucratic language. Let me know if I've cleaned it enough/too much for your comments. More comments are welcome. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quantitative precipitation forecast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quantitative precipitation forecast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quantitative_precipitation_forecast&oldid=1204971375"