Talk:Upper tropospheric cyclonic vortex

Upper tropospheric cyclonic vortex was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 28, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Weather: Non-tropical Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Tropical upper tropospheric trough

This article and the TUTT article are strongly related. There's going to be overlap between the two articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Upper tropospheric cyclonic vortex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 16:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you could write more clearly for the lay person? The jargon in the lead is very hard to understand.

What is a "surface vortex"? On the surface of what? Land?

What is "warm-core"? Does it mean having a warm core.

Does "an enhancement in monsoon rains occurs" mean increase in monsoon rains?

Those three issues should be taken care of. Since I've been in the field of meteorology for 19 years, I don't always recognize which words are jargon, and which ones aren't. If you're able to point out the instances, like you have so far, great. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An attempt was made to clarify wording and add wikilinks to explain terms used within the text. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(continuing)

Comment

I feel like I don't have the brain power to understand this article. It starts off assuming the reader knows what it is talking about. Although I have read and understood hurricane and other storm articles, this one is over my head. I was hoping to understand some features about weather from this article. If you could start out assuming that the reader doesn't know the first thing about the jargon involved, and explained the terms as you introduce them, that would help a lot. Xtzou (Talk) 18:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an example, and I'll try to fix it. Your comment is too general. I need specifics. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay.

"An upper tropospheric cyclonic vortex is a vortex, or a circulation with a definable center, that usually moves slowly from east-northeast to west-southwest and is prevalent across Northern Hemisphere's warm season." It would help if you set the context, such as "this is a term in meteorology that means generally ...."
Does it only pertain to the Northern Hemisphere? Why? Does it have an equivalent in the Southern Hemisphere? If so, what is the difference? Why in the warm season? Does temperature have anything to do with it?
A vortex is a circulation, right? So you are talking about a circulation or swirl, right? So this is the beginning of typhoons and hurricanes, and possibly cyclones?
" A weak inverted wave in the easterlies is generally found beneath it, and it may also be associated with broad areas of high-level clouds." Is this a wide spread phenomena, or does this happen in localized areas. e.g. are we talk about broad areas over North America (or wherever) or what?
"Downward development results in an increase of cumulus clouds and the appearance of circulation at ground level." Does this mean that as it's "downward" side grows, it causes cumulus clouds to increase, and causes "circulation" (or a vortex) on the ground?
I'm sorry that I cannot get beyond the introduction. Xtzou (Talk) 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry. That's exactly what I need. I should probably throw into the lead what height above sea level these circulations exist. All cyclone means, which is in the lead of the cyclone article, is an area of counterclockwise winds in the northern hemisphere. Vortex only implies there is a definite center, though in this case, not at sea/ground level, so they are circulations farther up in the troposphere. I should probably throw a line about the cyclone and vortex definitions into this article as well for clarification. There is no southern hemisphere equivalent, as their belt of westerlies is stronger and less interrupted by continents than in the northern hemisphere. If I can find a reference for that last line, I'll add it. Since these upper level lows are cold core, they normally have surface high-pressure areas underneath them, with a surface trough in the pressure pattern for stronger systems. The convection/thunderstorms which form southeast of the upper lows near troughs/tropical waves is usually not widespread. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Atmoz

There is a Northern Hemisphere bias in the lead.
Source 1 is a 72 page document. Can you include page numbers to make verification easier?
Is the entire first paragraph in "History of research"? Nowhere in the document does it talk about upper tropospheric cyclonic vortexes. Actually, this seems to be from Sadler (1975) but not referenced as such.
In text "Walter Bohan", in ref "Walter D. Wilkerson".Either the name of the author is wrong in the text or you're attribution is wrong.
Your definition of cold core is wrong. Cold core means the temperatures are lowest at the lowest pressures. Has nothing to do with the surface.
The second paragraph contains plagiarism. Changing a few words and keeping the same sentence structure is still plagiarism. Since it's PD, you can use it. But it needs to be attributed that you did not write it. A better solution is to summarize the sources. Some examples follow:
"The low-level convergence caused by the cut-off low can trigger squall lines and rough seas"
"The low-level convergence associated with a cut-off low can initiate squall lines and heavy seas."

"the low-level spiral cloud bands caused by the upper level circulation are alongside the low-level wind direction."
"The low-level spiral cloud bands associated with a cut-off low are parallel with the low-level wind direction."

"The animated satellite cloud imagery is a better tool for early dection and tracking"
"Animated satellite cloud imagery is a better tool for their early detection and tracking."
Source 4 is about TUTTs, not UTCVs.
I cannot find either the life cycle or the previous sentence in source 4.
The Sadler part needs a year. It has been generally known for a looong time that the upper troposphere is important for cyclogenesis.
Ref 6 is a bare link.
Huschke and Atkinson needs source(s) Presumably you got it from [1]. You need make clear that it was two separate papers (written over a decade apart!) and cite them. Huschke (1959) and Atkinson (1971). I have no idea which papers those are referring to, but those are the original source. Then WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
In general, it seems this article is over-reliant on one source.[2]
There needs to be clarification on how these things are different to TUTTs.
"In rare cases, it becomes warm-core, resulting in the vortex becoming a tropical cyclone." is said in the lead, but is not sourced. Nor is it mentioned in the text.
Pytlak and Goering is a conference abstract and I'm not sure it qualifies Wikipedia reliable source.
"Tropical upper tropospheric trough" is used several times in the text. Then the acronym TUTT is used without it ever being defined.
There are several recent studies that should be incorporated into the text.[3][4][5][6]
"Thunderstorm development" is not equivalent to "convection". It is possible to have convection without TS development.
I'm not sure why you piped pilot reports as airplane reports. The pilots are the ones making the reports, and that's the actual name for them.

Hopefully all those are clear. -Atmoz (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In tropical meteorology, convection does equal thunderstorm development, end of story. When the National Hurricane Center, or most weather forecasters, talk about active convection, it does not mean large scale overturning of a dry air mass (which can also be convection)...it means thunderstorm development. We both stated the same definition for cold core (surprise), just in different manners. The joy of the hypsometric equation. Could there be a surface low under a cold core low? Sure, it would just be very weak. I can throw your wording in there too, if you'd like, but most people won't understand it without a bit of explanation added to the statement. Pilot reports (PIREPs) can be either automated weather reports from aircraft or from the pilot, the last time I checked. I can go back through the references (I am not the primary author of this article) to see if there is plagiarism here. Thank you for the links to additional sources and secondary GAN review. Maybe one of them will talk about TUTT cells in the southern hemisphere, because I could find no source that did, nor have I ever attended any tropical meteorology conferences which even mentioned their existence. There may be unavoidable Northern Hemisphere bias in this article. Your input is as appreciated now as it would have been during the FAC review for wind Atmoz. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go ahead and fail the article, as you suggested on my talk page. Hopefully Atmoz's suggestions will help you, and you can resubmit the article. Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 18:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Unfortunately, I cannot understand the article, Atmoz has provided some usable suggestions for improving it.

B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Sources seem reliable

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Atomz indicated above that the references are not clear.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Seems to be too narrow in focus without enough context presented

B. Focused: I am unable to evaluate this as I do not have a background in meteorology
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I am sorry. I hope that you can address the problems and resubmit the article for GA. Xtzou (Talk) 19:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to apologize. It will take more than 6 days to fix the issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]