Jump to content

Talk:Storm Prediction Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleStorm Prediction Center 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 11, 2010Good article nomineeListed
May 21, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Comment

[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if anyone knew what the pink arrows on the Watches, Warnings, and Advisories map mean.Dr Denim 12:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The area west of the line has been removed form the watch. Error man 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ah...thanks...Dr Denim 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PUBLIC SEVERE WEATHER OUTLOOK section?

[edit]

There should be a section added for this. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/pwo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.223.183 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]


The Automated peer review tool gives the following:

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

<ref,

Anything further anyone can think of? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a section on the SPC's fire weather products? That is their other major purpose. Weatherstar4000 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Storm Prediction Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Toolbox

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    ''Mesoscale discussions are issued to give information on a region that is becoming a severe weather threat and states whether a watch is likely and details thereof, as well as situations of isolated severe weather when watches are not necessary. Surely the severe weather threatens the region, rather than being the threat?  Done
    with the increased duties this unit became the National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC) in 1966 What increased duties were these?
    The Day 3 Convective Outlook was first issued on an experimental basis in 2000, and was made an official product in 2001.[2] From 1995 to 2006 it was housed in the same building as the National Severe Storms Laboratory, after which it moved to the National Weather Center. This could be worded better, currently it reads as if the "Day 3 Convective Outlook" moved to the National Weather Center.n  Done
    There is a three-stage process in which the area, time period, and details of a severe weather forecast goes from more general to more specific while also, if warranted, increasing in severity. "More general to more specific"? Rather clumsy.  Done
    I'm not quite sure what to do about this one because that really is what the forecasts do...the threat area might start out with a general "central plains with a risk of large hail and tornadoes late this afternoon and evening" and by step three is pinned down to "western Kansas with the possibility of hail up to tennis ball size and isolated tornadoes, some significant, between 4 and 10 pm". More general to more specific is the only way I can think to phrase it. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    :::Find other words than "more general and more specific". At the momeent that is not plain English. Try "from a brioad summary to more specific foprecast" Something like that. I didn't copy-edit it myself, becuawe I didn't want to change the meaning, but at the moement it is unclear and bad grammar.
    I took a stab at it, but I have low confidence in what I achieved. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, that is very good. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The categorical risks are general thunderstorms (brown line), "SEE TEXT" (label on map indicating potential for isolated severe storms or near-severe storms), "SLGT" (green line indicating slight risk of severe weather), "MDT" (red line indicating moderate risk of severe weather), and "HIGH" (fuchsia line indicating high risk of severe weather). Critical areas (referred to as "hatched areas" because of their representation on outlook maps) refer to a threat of increased storm intensity that is of "significant severe" (F2/EF2 or stronger tornado, 2 inches (5 cm) or larger hail, or 75 mph (120 km/h) winds or greater) level What is this "SEE TEXT"? This all looks rather messy. Please rework to explain the references to the maps better. Remember that the thumbnails are not highly readable to those with small screen displays.
    Being as knowledgeable as I am on meteorology, I know too much about this to see what I can do to explain it better. Can I get some pointers? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    THis is addressed in my comments belwo. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ''Major events, such as large tornado outbreaks, are sometimes also possible on moderate risk days, but with greater uncertainty. These are not uncommon and are typically issued several times each month during the peak season. Presumably, "These are not uncommon" refers to the "A moderate risk day" warnings, not the "major events"  Done
    ''The Day 1 Convective Outlook, issued five times per day at 0600Z, although wikilinked, the Zulu time concept needs to be explained in the article. Nearly done
    The statement Convective outlooks are issued in Zulu time (also known as UTC), which is the same as the time in Greenwich, England. is factually incorrect. The time in (should be "at") Greenwich, England shouldn't be confused with Greenwich Mean Time. Between the last Sunday in October and the last Sunday in March, the time in or at Greenwich does coincide with GMT but at the momemnet we are on British summer time, one hour ahead. Just leave out the whole Greenwich bit.
    Day 2 outlooks, issued twice daily at 06Z and 1730Z, refer to tomorrow's weather (12Z-12Z of the next calendar day) are 06Z and 12Z typos?
    They are not. The day 2 outlooks issued April 7, 2010 would be the forecast for 12Z April 8th through 12Z April 9th. I'll clarify this concept better. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't shorten 0600Z to 06Z, or 1200Z to 12Z. Apart from the inaccuracy, it is confusing to do so.
    To what do the "SEE TEXT" labels refer in the table just below the Issuance and usage section? Do we actually need this? WEhat encyclopaedic value dioes this confusing and rather meaningless table have?
    "SLGT" needs explanation
    I attempted to clarify these two points with a "key" for the table, of sorts. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So we have a table that refers to the convective otlooks. Why not use a graphioc of the table as shown at [1]. This includes the hatch and can be shrunk, thus avoiding the rather messy layout that we have at present. And it can sit underneath the two convective outlook maps quite neatly.
    The message shown in the Example section needs some sort of caption, might be better as an image. It looks rather clumsy here. Likewise in the Weather watches section.
    I don't know what to do about this one either...they are, quite literally, products issued and taken from the archives...the product is both the image and the text present, so it would do the example fault to remove the text. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it is OR at the moment so it needs to go if you want GA status.
    I put in a line at the end of each text example stating the source of the text. In all honesty, this article would be incomplete without them, so without them it would fail GA regardless. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right I see what you are trying to do. Why not use the whole image as available at [2] and [3]. This solves the problems, it can be shrunk lightly and placed alongside the relevant text, which would make for vastly improved comprehension. But you certainly cna't just copy the text and cut and past it into the article. I assume that NOAA imagery is public domain (US)? 08:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    Well...Originally, it was shrunken and next to the text, and the graphic uploaded is the same used at those links. The only problem is my laptop has a larger monitor size than most computers, and other people were having problems with the text and picture overlapping. After I realized this, I moved them into the vertical format they are in now. Shrinking the image gives resolution problems of some kind (the lines start disappearing on the MD image, for example), and a graphics lab request to svg-ify the image never got completed. I'll put it back the way it was before to see if that works better though. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I am looking into this, testing in my sandbox, back in a while. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm back - I think I have fixed it using Template:Quote box. There are lots of parameters which you can play with, including border colour. I set the font size to 85% should should be good enough. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All online sources are live
    References appear reliable, although I note that all bar one are WP:SPS, and that one is written by an employee
    References support the statements
    The reconstructed message mentioned above, appear to be WP:OR. Perhaps link to the originals if they are available online. In any case they need referencing.
    The references for these are in the captions of the associated graphics. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    There is nothing about the number of employees, budget, etc. At the moment the article focusses in rather too much detail on the warnings issued, rather than the organization itself.  Done
    Better, but could do with even more. At the moment I can get all of this content by just looking at {http://www.spc.noaa.gov/} and following the links.
    Where did you find information on the budget? I've been searching half the internet and can't find it...all I can find is NOAA or National Weather Service's budgets. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find a specific budget for the storm prediction center, either.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No information from independent sources so it is not possible to ascertain this.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, there are quite a few things to address above. At the moment the article does not meet the Good Article criteria. Please remember that you are writing for an encyclopaedia with a general audience. On hold for seven days. Please leave comments here. I have watch-listed this page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I think this is fixed up enough to be a good article. Further areas you could explore are developing the history a little more. There is some interesting stuff here and here. The Fire Watch] side of things could also be developed more. Thanks for your work in responding to my concerns. I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I'm with the hurricane folks, and someone told me to come over here and review it, so here I am! :)

  • First, I think the lede could be better constructed. If I didn't know the article and I read the first sentence (paragraph, really), I would be lost very quickly. The first sentence is too technical, and while the information is valuable, it could be placed better. I suggest re-arranging the lede, perhaps putting the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph as the opening sentence.
  • What is "SELS", as introduced in the history section? Also, why was the agency created in the first place? Did the other agencies not have the capabilties of handling that? For that matter, more of the "why" would be nice in the history section, if that info is available.
    •  Doing..., but this involves me having to find the time to read a couple books I got at the library, which is rather scarce at the moment. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the history section - "1986 brought two new products" - seems rather vernacular. Try rewording that.
  • "The SPC was known as the National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC) and was located in Kansas City, Missouri until October 1995." - that's sort of a weird way to start a paragraph. You called it by its acronym earlier, so the reader knows the progression. Also, the way it is written makes it a bit of a run-on sentence.
    •  Done Fixed the acronym thing and rephrased the first sentence of the paragraph. I think half the sentence was accidentally left out at some point. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any history post-2006? If not, maybe just sum it up at the end of the history section - "The SPC continues its operations in X."
  • In the Categories section of the "Convective outlooks" section, you say
    • Many of the most prolific severe weather days were high risk days. This is quite rare; a high risk is typically issued only a few times each year. - hidden links like that aren't good. Perhaps try something like:
    • Many of the most prolific severe weather days were high risk days. Such days are unusual and are typically issued only a few times each year (see List of SPC High Risk days.
  • I notice two sections in "Issuance and usage" are unsourced.
  • The "Mesoscale discussions" section looks visually disorganized, due to the overlap of the image and the example.
    • For the life of me, I can't figure out how to fix this. At least 4 different configurations have been tried, but it really seems to depend on the monitor size whether or not they overlap. As it is, on my monitor, there's got to be at least 250 pixels of white space between the two. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Watches issued by the SPC are generally less than 20,000–50,000 square miles in area " - that should have a metric conversion.
  • The last section is missing a reference.
    • I went ahead and removed the comparison, because I don't recall that I found a comparison when reading my sources for the rest of the section. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Convective severe weather" is not a phrase commonly known in non-weather circles, so it'd be better if it were changed to something else in the first sentence. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Day 3 outlook table change

[edit]

I notice that an IP merged the Day 2 and Day 3 probability tables per a service change announcement, but from my reading of the announcement the only change to those products was that now both have the general thunder line, not that any probabilities were changed. The page describing the probabilities does not appear to have been updated since the service change came into effect. Can anyone confirm that my analysis of this is correct? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probability to categorical outlook conversions changes for 2017

[edit]

It the probability to categorical outlook conversions have been changed for 2017. Day one outlooks have become more complicated with now taking significant severe probabilities into account. The article and tables shown on this page should be changed to reflect these changes. See http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/SPC_probotlk_info.html for the current versions. Stormchaser89 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

example for the meso-gramma mesoscale discussion being added in the near future?

[edit]

this is lolkikmoddi im not logged in but could we put in a example for the meso gramma discussion thingys? like example, the long track tornado that was in Mississippi 3 years ago (2.25 mile wide one) where the discussion said "a violent tornado with winds of 170-205 mph is ongoing" or another example is the quad state supercell with 2 or 3 mesoscale discussions saying strong/violent. just a discussion cause i don't wanna get my ip banned for reverting back or being a butthole. 66.116.21.158 (talk) 66.116.21.158 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to try to find out of the one for Rolling Fork is technically a Meso-gamma discussion. I made a start class article for it (Storm Prediction Center mesoscale discussion 329) since they originally issued it for the wrong storm. If it is, that would cover as an example of one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I created a list of all 37 of them (List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions), but some editors do not think we need a list/examples of them, so both the meso—gamma 329 article and the list of all 37 of them were nominated for deletion. If either survive, we have an example or a see-also style thing to link to. Otherwise, the community consensus is no example should be on Wikipedia. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storm_Prediction_Center&oldid=1229199197"