Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cirrus cloud/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 4:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC) [1].

Cirrus cloud

[edit]
Notified: Reaper Eternal, ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31, IceUnshattered, Materialscientist, Doug Weller, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Adrian J. Hunter, Headbomb, Rollcloud, JCJC777, Joshoctober16, WikiProject Weather, WikiProject Climate change, talk page notification 8 January 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because over a decade after featuring this important subject could do with checking over by subject and Wikipedia experts and bringing up to date. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As one of the people heavily involved in taking this article to FA, I am not a huge fan of galleries of images. I don't think they add much to an article, since people could go to commons instead to find large numbers of images. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are more skillful at searching commons than me but I generally wade through lots of dross before finding good pics there Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you there, but I still dislike galleries, unless it's relevant to the article. For example, a gallery of Picasso's works would fit his article. There are uncountable numbers of reasonable pictures of cirrus clouds. If we really want a gallery of images, then I think that it should include one of each species and variety of cirrus cloud, and it should be placed directly beneath the paragraph discussing the species and varieties of cirrus clouds. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Sorry I don't understand what you are asking me to do here. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 let us know if any/some/all of the issues have been addressed, and whether there are any items you see that still need to be addressed, and whether progress is being made. At a month in to the FAR, you might also be entering a declaration (like "Hold, work underway" or "Close without FARC" or "Move to FARC"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who made improvements. I will read carefully again to check but from the point of view of a layman and Wikipedian I have no further suggestions or complaints. But I really have no idea whether this is FA quality now from a scientific point of view. So do I have to say "Move to FARC" so other people can vote? Or can they say here if they think it is scientifically FA standard? I mean cloud experts. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Noah are you able to add anything on this subject, for the rest of us non-weather editors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything specifically that's lacking. NoahTalk 22:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time getting past the lead; the prose and organization could use more work.

  • An article like this will be read by middle-school students, and the lead should be digestible to about a 12-year-old, and yet I had to google to figure out just what a cirrus cloud is, because the first paragraph was not well organized, and I hit a dead link at (now archived) https://web.archive.org/web/20081108034842/https://www.usatoday.com/weather/wcirrus.htm to a very old article which says something different than in the article.
  • USA today says they form above 18,000 feet, the lead says 16,500 feet, and the body of the article mentions 13,000 feet. USA today is not a high-quality weather source, and all of this needs to be sorted. But at least it tells me why cirrus clouds are thin, which was nice to know.
  • Next, in trying to reorganize the lead, I find that text is cited in the lead that should not need to be cited, as it should be already cited in the body. So, I went looking for a better citation for mare's tail in the body, and found that text is uncited in the body.
  • Do we expect a middle-school student to be able to digest this sentence without having to click out? "They also form from the outflow of tropical cyclones and from the anvils of cumulonimbus clouds." (When I did click out to anvil, I still couldn't determine what it was saying.
  • While USA today is not the kind of source we should be using here, it does have the simple, clear language and definition that should be in the lead.
  • The organization seems off; there is a lot of content in Description that isn't, and Formation seems lacking. Effects on climate is also Climate effects on clouds, so that is an odd section heading.
Sourcing and prose should be checked throughout, and the lead rewritten to be a more accessible overview that younger ages and reading levels will access. After finding the altitude at which they form isn't clear or cited to high-quality sourced, I stopped there. More work needed. The lead goes into detail which might be above the reading and education level of where this article should aim.
I don't expect every article to come out of FAR perfect, but this is a basic topic, with broad appeal across many ages, so we should get it right and make it shine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Chidgk1 this is the kind of feedback that I meant is needed, so knowledgeable editors are guided towards what to work on :) I don't know a thing about weather either, but it doesn't take specialist knowledge to assess the readability of the lead and pick up the sorts of things I mentioned above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK thanks for telling me that the aim is middle school readability. Maybe other editors can prove me wrong but I think that will be impossible so I now say Move to FARC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 07:27, March 14, 2022 (UTC)
Chidgk1 not throughout; it's the lead that needs to provide an accessible overview, and sixth to eighth graders are likely to access this topic. I think it not impossible at all; we just need some of the sourcing and organization fixed so the lead can be cleaned up. From the sources I can check (which aren't necessarily the best sources), I am unsure Mare's tail belongs in the lead, as it appears to be not so common, but that depends on better sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, thanks for this. Unfortunately, regarding the first point, I am not an educator and unsure what constitutes a 7th-grade reading level. I'm an engineer, not an educator. :(
Regarding your second point, it is due to cirrus formation altitude being influenced heavily by latitude (and hence local tropopause height), season, and humidity. I can try to clarify this more, but the 13,000 ft claim is for the lowest formation in polar regions during winter with a gradient towards 21,000 ft floor in tropical regions. Dowling and Radke cover some of this in their paper. I wasn't aware that USA Today wouldn't be a reliable source when I initially took this article from stub to GA, but I'll remove the reference to it and replace them with more high-quality scientific references (i.e. Dowling & Radke). I believe USA Today simply took the average cirrus altitude for the continental US. Another likely thing that I'll do is switch from altitude ranges, which are highly variable and somewhat difficult to read, to mean altitude, which is a single number and easier on the eyes. Additionally, most cirrus form in a relatively narrow altitude band around the mean altitude, so this should give a better understanding to readers. I will briefly cover the altitude range in the body. Ironically, it was (and still is) extremely difficult to find a reliable source for the most common nickname "mares' tails".
Unfortunately, there will always be some mildly-technical jargon like "anvil clouds". I could say something like "blown-out top of a thunderstorm cloud", but that ironically is probably more confusing to anybody who has ever heard of an anvil cloud.
Regarding organization, I'll try to take a stab at that soon. The "description" section covers both the macroscopic and microscopic descriptions of cirrus clouds, in addition to various bulk properties like humidity. The "formation" section is rather bare because the article doesn't (and shouldn't) cover the process of deposition (phase transition). Rather, I chose to cover where cirrus clouds form, and the common whether phenomenon that produce these conditions. Possibly, the humidity section should be moved from the "description" to the "formation" section, since humidity influences formation.
Chidgk1, the entire article cannot be converted to middle-school level readability simply due to the physics involved. Nor do I believe it should. The lede is another matter, and hopefully someone better at writing than I am can take a stab at improving it.
What are your thoughts on these potential changes, SandyGeorgia? Hopefully, I'll be able to improve the article enough to keep this as a FA.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RE, do what you can; if you get it well sourced and accurate, I can pick away at making sure the lead is digestible when you're done. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that the main source for the comparison section is dead (mostly moved to here and updated). However, it now copies Wikipedia, including the featured picture at the top of this article! I'm thinking I might have to replace it entirely since this is now a circular reference. Thoughts? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaper Eternal Just to make sure I am following, could you please spell out which source is which? That is, which source do you suspect is copying Wikipedia, and from which source to which source was content moved? I am asking because I think we are talking about all public domain sources, so it is possible that we copied them, which is permissible but should be attributed. I can check on all of that, but need to be sure I'm checking the right thing.
    On your general question, we should never use a source that copies content from Wikipedia, as that by definition would not be a reliable source. But my hunch is that is not what happened here; it's much more likely that we copied from public domain sources, and just need to reflect that with attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The archived version of the "JetStream NWS" source (citation #47 in this version) does not include the featured picture at the top of the article, whereas the new version copies the featured picture. When I wrote that section (I think I wrote it...was 12 years ago!), I did not copy from the NWS. In any case, I've redone that section a little bit, removed redundant (and possibly inaccurate) information, and updated the sources to use Funk's paper, which contained that information anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaper Eternal Ah, I did not realize you originally wrote the article, so less work needed. And I can't decipher exactly which text you are referring to, but Earwig copyvio detector turns up no problem. I am still trying to follow what the concern is. You are saying that this old version of an NOAA site did not include an image that weather.gov does. Which image are you referring to when you "featured picture"? Could you please link to the Wikipedia image of concern so I can be certain we are on the same page? Are you saying they copied our image, our text, or both? I can ask a copyright person to look in here, but would prefer we are precise about what they need to look at first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    File:CirrusField-color.jpg is the image in question. It's currently in the infobox, and in the version the article was promoted in, it was the picture at the top of the article. Note how it's now in the weather.gov site captioned as "cirrus clouds over a field" but not present in the old citation. In short, weather.gov copied our image, so it makes me doubt that that particular page is trustworthy enough anymore. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, understood now. But it remains to be determined if our image was truly "ours". I will ping in someone to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I was wondering File:Cloud types en.svg is preferable to File:Wolkenstockwerke.png (that we are using now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely better. I've updated the article accordingly. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've caught up now. You are saying that File:CirrusField-color.jpg, a Featured picture, is used at weather.gov. But they aren't crediting Wikipedia Commons. I believe our license on that image says they must give credit, so yes, that is a problem. Do I have this right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: might you lend a hand here? Featured picture File:CirrusField-color.jpg is used at weather.gov, but the image is not attributed to Wikipedia. We have had that image for almost two decades. The National Weather Service first shows up at archive.org in 2015. Older archive versions from the National Weather Service did not have that image. (I am having a hard time following, but I think Reaper Eternal is saying that the NOAA site is an older version of the weather.gov site.) Can we be certain that Featured picture was "ours", and if so, is weather.gov failing to follow the license? Because if so, this casts doubt on the reliability of a source used throughout Wikipedia weather articles, weather.gov. Thanks for any assistance! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, if we had the image first they are violating the licence. But I am bothered by the broken files on the weather.gov page - I think it may be outdated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And we have to be sure we had it first; there could be an "irregularity" on our side :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse image searches and archive snapshots are often of limited use for images this old, so generally considerations are based on other indicators such as EXIF data, uploader history, etc. File:CirrusField-color.jpg was taken with an Olympus C5050Z, which is the same camera used in the uploader's selfies (e.g., File:Subtle (Facebook).jpg and File:PiccoloWave.jpg) and certain of the uploader's other cloud images (e.g., File:Nov20-05-Nimbostratus.jpg, File:Contrails-forming-an-X.jpg, File:CumulusField-01.jpg, etc.) Consistent camera model--and indeed over disparate subjects (clouds, selfies, hamsters, Skittles, etc.), suggesting the uploader did not simply take an existing portfolio of cloud images--is generally a strong indicator that an image is indeed the uploader's. From a Commons perspective, I wouldn't consider this to rise to the threshold of significant doubt, especially in conjunction with AGF. So, yes, I think the balance of current information says this is "ours." Regarding use on weather.gov, an anecdote: a year or two ago, a Minnesota state employee was uploading images to promote Minnesota's True North campaign. She'd been given a portfolio of PR images and been told to disseminate them to social media and, obviously, was blissfully unaware of WMF's purpose, her lack of authority to license IP on behalf of the State of Minnesota, and that the State of Minnesota was not even the copyright holder for most (all) of the images. In an era where digital images are indiscriminately disseminated, this is exceedingly common; government employees and sites, while generally better than average, are not immune to ignorance of IP license provisions (which I don't mean to be pejorative; they are genuinely without related awareness or knowledge). That said, though, I might suggest that reliability is relative. Assertions made by weather.gov regarding atmospheric phenomena and regarding intellectual properties are, as we say, zwei Paar Schuhe--different animals. Эlcobbola talk 15:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Elcobbola; you are, as always, a rock star. Reaper Eternal so the image likely is "ours", National Weather Service probably did take it from us without proper attribution, but that doesn't necessarily mean the National Weather Service is not reliable for weather info. Some one with some time on their hands should write to NWS and tell them of their breach of our license. @Nikkimaria and Buidhe: who probably want to read this from an image point of view as frequent image reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment: I've gone through the article now and made several changes:

  • I reviewed (and replaced as needed) any potentially-unreliable sources. I left the USA Today source supporting only the explanation of why cirrus clouds are thin, since all technical reliable sources that I found simply assume the reader will recognize this. (They also don't tend to discuss "obvious" properties like color or colloquial nicknames like "mare's tails".) I believe it is reliable enough for this basic claim. One potential thing that remains (and I can solve it if needed), is that some papers are only referenced once. They are included in the footnotes, but I could move them to the bibliography and use {{harvnb}} if that is better.
  • I checked for additional information regarding current topics (climate change), and only found an article from NASA in 2013 stating that further research is needed to determine if rising temperatures will increase cirrus clouds (positive feedback loop) or decrease them (negative feedback). There is plenty of current discussion on cirrus cloud thinning, a dubious geoengineering approach, but that's a topic for another article. It is still briefly mentioned in the cirrus cloud article.
  • I reorganized some information so that paragraphs now only cover their main topic. Over the years, copyedits and general additions to the article had resulted in information getting scattered.
  • I reviewed and cleaned up the altitude claims in the article. Part of the reason for the disagreement was that cirrus clouds do not form in a narrowly-defined band of altitude range(s). I also switched to using average altitude, since that is more useful information for the reader. Do note that the altitude ranges given for high-, mid-, and low-level clouds in the "Comparison to other clouds" section do not necessarily agree with the full range of altitudes within which cirrus clouds may be found. This is because these ranges are descriptive, not definitive. A cirrus cloud that forms under the usual 6000m / 20,000ft "lower limit" of high-level clouds is still a cirrus cloud, and similarly if an altostratus cloud peeks over that "upper limit", it doesn't magically become cirrostratus.
  • I checked for factual errors and corrected several that had been introduced, possibly through copyediting, including a recently-added claim that cirrus fibratus is the source of the mare's tails nickname rather than the hooked form cirrus uncinus.

It probably still needs another pair of eyes to go through the prose and improve it, since I'm the original author of most of the material in the article and thus have trouble seeing issues. :) Once that's done, I hope this article will still be considered FA-quality. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will look it over, most likely tomorrow, as I have a commitment later today. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal I am still concerned that we need to bring down a bit the reading level of the lead. I may not have gotten most of this right, but these are samples of the direction I suggest heading ...

  • "Cirrus clouds can form from the outflow of tropical cyclones and from the anvils of cumulonimbus clouds. Cirrus clouds arrive ahead of the frontal systems that can be associated with those storms." I have to click out twice (anvil and cumulonimbus), and am still unclear what the anvil is (the article says flat-top, but the images look flat-bottomed to me), and they form from something that they preceded ? Can this whole thing be glossed over with much simpler language ... something like, "they can also form from moisture generated from other types of clouds"? We don't have to have all the detail in the lead; it's in the body.
  • "Latent heat, released as water vapor deposits to form the cirrus cloud, raises the temperature of the air beneath the main cloud layer by an average of 10 °C (18 °F)." Can we avoid latent heat in the lead by something like ... As water vapor deposits to form the cirrus cloud, energy is released that raises the temperature of the air beneath the main cloud layer". Skip the amount of temperature drop, keep it simple, detail in the body. But by the way, tell the reader why we care that the temperature raises ... what does that temperature change result in ...
  • I clicked on fall streak and still don't know what it is... can that sentence be glossed to simplify? Can we just say ... "They may be a sign that storms are on the way, but cirrus themselves drop only small ice crystals, which evaporate as they fall and never reach the ground." Shorter sentences, simpler concepts, rest is in the article.
  • "Jet stream-powered cirrus clouds can grow long enough to stretch across continents, while remaining only a few kilometers deep." Would this work ? "The jet stream can cause the thin clouds to grow long enough to stretch across continents." Again we don't have to have all the detail in the lead.
  • " Reflection and refraction of sunlight or moonlight by the ice crystals in cirrus clouds produces optical phenomena, such as sun dogs and halos." --> ?? --> Sun dogs and halos can result when light from the sun or moon hits ice crystals in the cloud and is reflected or changes direction.
  • "Many individual filaments can form a sheet of high cloud, called cirrostratus. Convection at high altitudes can produce another genus of high cloud, cirrocumulus, with a pattern of small cloud tufts containing droplets of supercooled water." --> ?? --> There are two other kinds of high-level cirrus clouds. Individual cloud threads can join together to make a high fabric-like sheet of clouds, called cirrostratus. Cirrocumulus have a pattern of small cloud tufts and contain droplets of supercooled water."

Just ideas ... you will surely need to adjust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the lead
  • We were told in the lead they are thin, but the first thing we encounter in the body is thick. Can "Cirrus clouds range in thickness from 100 m (330 ft) to 8,000 m (26,000 ft), with an average thickness of 1,500 m (4,900 ft)." --> ?? --> "Cirrus clouds are thin compared to other types of clouds, ranging between 100 m (330 ft) and 8,000 m (26,000 ft), with an average thickness of 1,500 m (4,900 ft)."
  • We shouldn't assume that knowledge gained in the lead transfers to the body, as a reader may go straight to the body. So, we have a problem here:
    There are, on average, 30 ice crystals per liter (110 per gallon), but this ranges from one ice crystal per 10,000 liters (3.7 ice crystals per 10,000 US gallons) to 10,000 ice crystals per liter (37,000 ice crystals per US gallon), a difference of eight orders of magnitude.
    that we are talking about these ice crystals in these clouds before we have established that cirrus clouds are made of ice crystals. Does the Formation section need to move up, before the Description section?
    Then, we have a different problem of switching units, which confuses the brain (per liter moves to per 10,000 liters, so can we reformulate to keep the same units (per liter) together and give the reader a clue that a change is going to happen when we switch --> ?? --> "The average number of ice crystals in cirrus clouds is 30 per liter (110 per gallon). There may be as many as 10,000 per liter (37,000 ice crystals per US gallon), and as few as one per 10,000 liters (3.7 ice crystals per 10,000 US gallons), a difference of eight orders of magnitude.
    How does 37,000 per gallon --> 3.7 per 10,000 gallons become eight orders of magnitude? Looks ten times greater from here ... can we state that more simply ?

Stopping there for now to get your feedback, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ten cubic metres is shown at https://removalspackagingmaterials.com/smartblog/6_ten-cubic-metres . So if I calculated right in that volume there could be as few as one ice crystal or as many as 100 million. (average 300 thousand) But how to show or describe that volume? Volume of concrete mixer truck per https://www.themeasureofthings.com/results.php?comp=volume&unit=cm&amt=10&sort=pr&p=1 ? Or better instead describe min/av/max distance between crystals - roughly 10 m / 3 cm / half cm I think but please check my maths. Or a shipping container is 33.2 cu m so could put crystals in that as I guess most readers will have seen a shipping container. I think I prefer shipping container as avoids mentioning US units. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Chidgk1, I'd be happy to include the ice crystal concentration in terms of shipping containers, but it would be absolutely impossible for me to find a reliable source discussing ice crystal concentrations in such units. Or does that fall under basic calculations and thus does not need a source? I've currently redone the concentration slightly to spell out the words, separate US and metric units, and use a consistent denominator. Thoughts? Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you're getting at. I'll try to reduce the amount of technical terminology in the lede. However, would it be reasonable for me to describe the technical term rather than simply stating it, and, while doing so, still wikilink to the correct article? For example, consider something like this for a rewrite of the first sentence in the second paragraph of the article:
This removes the references and links to outflow (meteorology) and anvil cloud, but preserves those to cumulonimbus cloud (now in layman's terms) and tropical cyclone. I'd keep the term "tropical cyclone" simply because "hurricane", "typhoon", etc. are all region-specific terms.
Regarding the content beyond the lede, I will probably need to reorganize a fair chunk of the article to kick the heavy stuff farther down. Currently, the entire description section is roughly organized from microscopic properties to macroscopic, but that organization can't stay if we want a more easy read at the start of the body. I'll need to do some thinking about this, but my initial thoughts are:
  1. Break the "description" section in two. The first four paragraphs will be moved to their own section (called "properties"?) and placed just above the "optical phenomena" section. The ice crystal information needs to precede that section because the shape and density of the ice crystals affects the presence or absence of optical effects. However, it isn't needed for a reader to understand what is or isn't a cirrus cloud.
  2. Move the final paragraph of the "description" section (covering cirrus species) to the start of the section. Move the paragraph on virga to just after this, and place the cloud cover paragraph last.
  3. If we cannot assume the reader has read the lede, write a new paragraph just ahead of the paragraph on cirrus species covering the general appearance of cirrus clouds. This paragraph probably won't need to be particularly long. The order of paragraphs in the "description" section will then be: General cirrus appearance -> specific cirrus species -> [image gallery] -> virga / fall streaks -> cloud cover.
  4. (Optional) Move the "formation" section above the pared-down "description" section, but I still think that we'll want to discuss what in general constitutes cirrus clouds and/or what they look like before we discuss how they form. I don't feel strongly either way, though.
What are your all's thoughts on these potential changes? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reaper Eternal you've got the idea, and the wording is best left to you, then. Think about several things for younger readers who may access the top of the article. Shorter sentences. Keep a link in the lead if you need, but never force the reader to click out to understand the sentence. At that stage, they should be clicking out only if they want to learn more. Keep units going a parallel direction, otherwise give the reader a heads up if you're going to switch gears on what units you're talking about-- remember that the non-scientific types glaze over as soon as they see a number; spoonfeed, simplicity, don't make extra work for eye-to-brain. Don't assume reader has understood or read all of the lead. Build in levels of complexity as you go. Don't do sentence construction that makes a reader go forwards, then backwards, then forwards again. as that adds complexity. By that I mean as in the example of the sentence about sundogs and halos. The thing you're telling the reader about is sundogs and halos, so make them the beginning of the sentence, get that clear right away, rather than two complex words (refraction and reflection) ... very straightforward sentence construction at the top, but you can get more complex as you move down. Please ping me when I should look in again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, you can also do manual converts to make numbers easier. What I often do is put in the convert to get the converted numbers that I then type out manually. So
  • Cirrus clouds are thin compared to other types of clouds, ranging between 100 m (330 ft) and 8,000 m (26,000 ft), with an average thickness of 1,500 m (4,900 ft)
could become
  • Cirrus clouds are thin compared to other types of clouds. Their depth can range from 100 m to 8,000 m (330 ft to 26,000 ft), with an average depth of 1,500 m (4,900 ft)."
or
  • Cirrus clouds are thin compared to other types of clouds, with an average thickness of 1,500 m (4,900 ft). Their thickness can range from 100 m to 8,000 m (330 ft to 26,000 ft)."
Shorter sentences, and if you think in feet, your eye can skip straight to the second set of numbers ... less convoluted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I think I'm going to have to change the word "thin" to something else. When I and other sources were describing cirrus as "thin", we meant "optically thin", as in they don't really block out much sunlight. You can see straight through most cirrus clouds. Compare that to a cumulus cloud (one of those little puffy clouds in summer on a sunny day) which is completely opaque. Cirrus clouds themselves are absolutely colossal. NASA has a really nice image here showing the scale of cirrus clouds—the ones in that image are over 200 km long, roughly 30 km wide, and varying between 3 and 5 km thick. Compare that to the absolutely tiny (in comparison—they're still several cubic kilometers each!) but much denser cumulus clouds lower in altitude in the same image.
I might incorporate that image (should be {{pd-usgov}}) into the article to try to give some sort of sense of scale. It'll probably go nicely where the article discusses cloud depth.
I don't want to give the impression that cirrus clouds can't be "thick", so if anybody has some good synonyms that convey the concept of "light and translucent", I'm all ears. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Transparent", "glassy", "opaque", "dark"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency isn't the same thing as translucency. "Glassy" isn't really how I'd describe a cirrus cloud, though. "Opaque" and "dark" are antonyms. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know but if we are describing for lay people, somewhat inexact terminology may be justified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood ... that's why I leave the final to you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal asked me for a copyedit on my talk page. As I said there I don't trust my prose enough for a copyedit, but a few comments on this version:

  • I don't think these two statements in the lead that have citations should remain there, other than perhaps the etymology.
  • I've moved the jet stream statement to the body and expanded on it a bit with information about jet streaks (bands in the jet stream). This should make it more relevant to the rest of the article. I've moved then etymology to the opening paragraph in the "description" section and shortened the etymology sentence in the lead. I'm not opposed to removing it entirely. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement on warming should be longer than one sentence, and "greenhouse effect" is a poor link.
  • I added a sentence on climate change feedback loops to clarify why cirrus clouds are important, but don't want to add too much more due to the need for summary style. I also don't understand why "greenhouse effect" is a poor link. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the lead section is too heavy on jargon, myself. But "micron" and "supercooled" may warrant an explanation.
  • What's "wind shear"?
  • "Based on data taken in the United States," is there a more global assessment?
  • Unfortunately, that was the only study I could find that went into depth on cloud cover changes. There is a more global study referenced later in the same paragraph, but it only mentions annually-averaged cloud cover. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formation section starts off with a discussion of formation processes, talks a lot about elevation and then returns to formation processes. I think this is a bit too jumpy.
  • I've split this paragraph in two. There's now only a brief mention of altitude in the first paragraph, since the reader does need to know that cirrus clouds are high to understand why they are translucent (high altitude + low absolute humidity = not a particularly dense cloud). However, the meat of the altitude / thickness discussion is now in the second paragraph. I've also added more comparative text to try to split up the numbers a bit to make them easier to read. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aerosol sentence should probably be expanded or merged somewhere.
  • A PALMS experiment showed that organic particles don't tend to form cirrus cloud ice crystals. (Water vapor prefers mineral or metallic nucleation seeds.) Do you think I should add this information to the organic aerosol comment, or just remove it altogether? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's "outflow", "rainbands" and "eyewalls"?
  • Thunderstorms often aren't cyclones, so I would retitle the section.
  • What's "lidar", "Particle Analysis by Laser Mass Spectrometry", "supersaturation" and "hygrometer"?
  • Lidar is now explained in text as "laser-based radar". Supersaturation is also now explained in-text the first time it is mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm not sure what you're asking for regarding hygrometers and the PALMS instrument. The text already explains what these instruments are used for and what they do. Do you want me to explain how they work? I'm concerned that this will just exceed the scope of the article and make it nearly unreadable, since the PALMS instrument especially is difficult to understand, using high-energy UV laser ablation. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PALMS system is now roughly explained in a footnote. Unfortunately, explaining how mass spectrometry works will require the reader to understand college-level physics, so the device will have to remain a bit of a "magic box". Hygrometer is also now defined in a footnote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am familiar with much of the jargon but the article shouldn't presume too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia and Chidgk1, I think I have resolved most of the issues now. The article should now be much easier to read, and the material is now sorted in such a way that the heavy reading in the experiment methodology and results section is pushed way down. Even that should now be reorganized and rewritten in a way to reduce number overload. The description section now also includes a general description of cirrus clouds—perfect for people who aren't interested in reading the lead section. I've also gone through the article several times and reduced as much technical jargon as I can, either by explaining it in layman's terms (e.g. "virga" -> "falling streaks of ice crystals that dissipate before reaching the ground" in the lead section) or by giving brief definitions in the article text. This should help readers not have to click out of the article a bunch. I'm not a huge fan of the short and choppy sentences in the lead section, but I understand that it's necessary for middle schoolers (some of whom may not even speak English as their native language) to be able to understand the gist of the article. Thank you all for your assistance, and let me know if you see anything else that needs improving. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will read through tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am making copyedits as I go; please revert anything I mess up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spell out units on first occurrence. For example, here:
    "Cirrus forms between 4,000 and 20,000 m" the casual reader does not know if this is miles or meters.
    Done. I think this was the only case—all other units are spelled out first, or spelled out always if the units would be difficult to read like /yd^3. I do have one question regarding this sentence: "Bands of faster-moving air...can create arcs of cirrus cloud hundreds of kilometers (miles) long." Should I bother with the "miles" in parentheses at all? There's no real defined length for these massive arcs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's OK ... can't see how to address that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "form in the atmospheres of other planets, including Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune; and on Titan, one of Saturn's larger moons." Does this mean to say including? It looks like a complete list: are there others?
    Technically, given that there are probably billions of extra-solar planets, chances are almost certain that another planet will have cirrus clouds. However, this is purely hypothetical, so I have removed "including". I could clarify that this only applies to solar planets, but I think that would just make the lead harder to understand without telling the reader anything useful. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't some of the names in the infobox require italics?
    Oof. I'm not a huge infobox fan. I suppose technically I should italicize all the species and variety names listed in the infobox, but that just looks a bit silly. I can do this if you want, though I'd personally prefer to just delete the infobox since it contains nothing of value and the article passed FAC without one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I. Hate. Infoboxes. Does that sum it up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take that as permission to make the infobox go away then. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes we say cirrus, and sometimes cirrus clouds. Can this sentence start with just cirrus, to avoid the redundant use of the word cloud?
    Cirrus clouds are wispy clouds made of long strands of ice crystals ... --> ... Cirrus are wispy clouds made of long strands of ice crystals ...
    Sure. Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the clouds are usually white due to their ice crystal composition, the rising or setting sun can color them ... " --> We haven't yet talked about formation here, so ?? --> Ice crystals in the clouds cause them to usually be white, but the rising or setting sun can color them ...
    Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of description, floccus and spissatus are never defined.
    I've added information on these two species. The floccus species especially is largely irrelevant, but it is still defined now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intortus is italicized in the rest of the para, but not here ? " ... are a form of cirrus intortus that has been ... "
    Corrected. I'm honestly just following the guidelines for plants (hah!) where genus, species, and variety are all italicized. Most articles that cover cloud species and/or varieties are highly technical and don't italicize anything, but I don't think they're a good source for what should or shouldn't be italicized. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal I'm going to stop there for now, as I just made some big changes to layout which you will need to check before I continue. If you hate the removal of the gallery, now is your chance to revert, but I think this makes it much easier to read the text and compare with the images next to the text. I'll continue once you give me the green light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very much dislike galleries (see my begrudging comments near the top of this FAR), so I am happy to see it gone. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reaper EternalI felt like it interrupted the flow of prose, and it is easier to compare with the images being closer to the text. Shall I continue now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal I am trying to rework the last paragraph of description, as it is tough going. This quote from the source is giving me fits:

The global cirrus cover has been estimated to be about 20–25%, but recent analysis using the satellite infrared channels at the 15-micrometer carbon dioxide (CO2) band has shown that their occurrence is more than 70% over the tropics.

This seems ambiguous. a) On average, 70% of the tropics have cirrus cloud cover at any time (which doesn't seem right to me, having lived in the tropics where the sky is often Big Sky Montana clear and blue). Or b) of the 20 to 25 % average cloud cover globally, 70% of that occurs in the tropics ??? See below what I am trying to do ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current Ideas
Based on data taken in the United States, cirrus cloud cover varies diurnally and seasonally. In the summer, at noon, the cover is the lowest, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus. Around midnight, the cloud cover increases to around 28%. In winter, the cirrus cloud cover did not vary appreciably from day to night. These percentages include clear days and nights, as well as days and nights with other cloud types, as lack of cirrus cloud cover. When these clouds are present, the typical coverage ranges from 30% to 50%. Based on satellite data, cirrus covers an average of 20% to 25% of the Earth's surface. In the tropical regions, these clouds cover around 70% of the region's surface area. Cirrus covering the Earth is constantly changing in type, position and amount; globally, an average of 20% to 25% of the Earth is covered. (a or b --> a. Satellite data indicates that the cirrus cloud cover in tropical regions is around 70% of the area. or b. Satellite data indicates that 70% of the global cloud cover occurs in tropical areas. Data from the United States indicates that cirrus cloud cover varies during the day and by season. In the northern summer months (roughly June through September), the cover is the lowest at noon, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus. Around midnight, the cloud cover increases to about 28%. In the northern winter months (roughly December through March), the cirrus cloud cover does not change appreciably from day to night. Days without cirrus cloud cover include clear days and nights, as well as days and nights with other cloud types. When cirrus are present, they typically cover 30% to 50% of the sky.
getting global first, then local to US
explain constantly changing cloud cover
clarify what the 70% is
addressing MOS:SEASON issues
avoid around ... around, change second around to about
The "These percentages include ..." sentence was a jumble ...

Help! By the way, templates for done and the like are discouraged at FAC and FAR, as they cause Wikipedia:Template limits problems in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've removed the templates now.
It hadn't occurred to me that the sentence could have a double meaning. Let me find a second source to make sure. (Bear in mind that most of the tropics are over oceans, so what you might see from land isn't necessarily indicative of the mean.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will leave this (mess I made) to you, and move on to the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know the CALIPSO satellite has recently been taking cirrus cloud measurements. I'll see if I can find any updated research on cloud coverage from their findings. If I find such research, it might also remove the need for US-specific measurements that had to be used when I wrote the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, I strongly doubt that 70% means "70% of the 25% global cirrus cloud cover", or the USA alone would have most of the remaining cirrus clouds. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I was able to find some sources utilizing CALIPSO satellite data confirming that the "70% in the tropics" is, in fact, up to 70% of the sky averaged annually for a specific area. In short, some tropical regions, mostly Congo, southeast Asia, and Amazon have roughly 70% cirrus cloud cover, whereas other tropical regions have less.
  • Gasparini, B; Meyer, A; Neubauer, D; Münch, S; Lohmann, U (1 March 2018). "Cirrus Cloud Properties as Seen by the CALIPSO Satellite and ECHAM-HAM Global Climate Model". Journal of Climate. 31 (5). American Meteorological Society: 1983–2003. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0608.1. Retrieved 19 March 2022.
  • Heymsfield; Krämer; Luebke; Brown; Cziczo; Franklin; Lawson; Lohmann; McFarquhar; Ulanowski; Van Tricht (1 January 2017). "Cirrus Clouds". Meteorological Monographs. 58 (1). American Meteorological Society. doi:10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0010.1. Retrieved 19 March 2022.
The former of those sources states that previous estimations of tropical cirrus cloud cover might be overestimated by as much as 15-20% due to insufficient backscatter filtering. (Basically, they're saying that high humidity in the tropics might have confused some earlier instruments / measurements and made them overestimate cirrus cloud cover.) Furthermore, the modern measurements show a global cirrus cloud cover of 31-32%, not 20-25%. I'll try to rewrite the whole paragraph, and do you think I should just drop the USA-specific information given that (1) the CALIPSO data is worldwide, and (2) those measurements have been shown to be outdated and potentially inaccurate? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds wise to me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and completely rewritten the paragraph. There's no more USA-specific information, since it's largely irrelevant now that the CALIPSO global dataset can be used. The 70% claim is now clarified to be more local and not the entire tropical band. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need clarification?

  • Cirrus forms from tropical cyclones, and is commonly seen fanning out from the eye walls of hurricanes.

It reads as if they only or always from tropical cyclones ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Cirrus can form from tropical cyclones and is commonly seen fanning out from the eye walls of tropical cyclones." Alternatively, would this more concise version be preferred, even though it only implies formation rather than stating it directly? "[Sheets of] Cirrus commonly fans out from the eye walls of tropical cyclones." Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Best left to you ... but I'm becoming confused about whether we use the word cirrus in the singular or plural. I think I like the second version better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a typo in my example. It's plural. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before this statement, we haven't been told they are increasing (maybe that is related to the 70% issue above )?

  • and increased air traffic has been implicated as one possible cause of the increasing frequency and amount of cirrus in Earth's atmosphere ...

Should basic data about the increase be mentioned earlier in this section, before the contrails section? Because I see it also comes in to play later in the Climate change sections ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's mostly only relevant for the climate change section. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why these numbers are all spelled out rather than in digits; it is very hard to read.

  • Cirrus clouds have an average ice crystal concentration of three hundred thousand ice crystals per ten cubic meters (two hundred seventy thousand ice crystals per ten cubic yards). The concentration ranges from as low as one ice crystal per ten cubic meters to as high as one hundred million ice crystals per ten cubic meters (just under one ice crystal per ten cubic yards to seventy-seven million ice crystals per ten cubic yards), a difference of eight orders of magnitude.
    --> Cirrus clouds have an average ice crystal concentration of 300,000 per 10 cubic meters (270,000 per 10 cubic yards). The concentration ranges from as low as 1 ice crystal per 10 cubic meters to as high as 100 million per 10 cubic meters (just under one 1 per 10 cubic yards to 77 million per 10 cubic yards), a difference of eight orders of magnitude.

I'm still not seeing eight orders of magnitude. I tried reading the source, but none of this is on page 977 of Dowling & Radke, as cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eight orders of magnitude is just mathematics (100 million = 1e8; 1 = 1e0; 8 - 0 = 8). I spelled out the numbers to hopefully make it a little easier to understand, but if that's having the opposite effect, I'll change it back. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to numbers, though "million" is still spelled out to avoid zero overload. (i.e. I have 300 million instead of 300,000,000.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what these says/means:

Changed to "Cirrus in temperate regions typically have the various ice crystal shapes separated by type." Alternatively, would this complete rewrite be preferable? "The ice crystals in temperate cirrus clouds typically stratify [maybe use "separate" or "layer" instead?] by shape." Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With Femke, Jo-Jo and Hurricane Noah already through, I think we're just about good to go here. But since we're aiming for readability for a broad audience, let's make sure Buidhe and Hog Farm give it a good going over as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, thank you very much for helping me with this—I couldn't have done it without you! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for teaching me about cirrus clouds ... I feel like such a smarty pants now ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

[edit]
  • They form between 4,000 and 20,000 meters (13,000 and 66,000 feet) above sea level and tend to form at higher elevations in the tropics. <- Confusing: is it higher than this range in the tropics? (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote sentence to clarify. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can be used to predict the arrival of rain or storms" <- passive voice and human-centric perspective unnecessary here. Perhaps insert "sometimes" if they don't always presage rain or storms. Or just delete this clause if the next sentence covers it well enough
    Changed to active voice. I included "sometimes" since, as mentioned in the body, random cirrus clouds don't mean much from a weather prediction standpoint. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the prose and comprehensibility look OK, but I've always been focused on content so am not the right person to nitpick prose. (t · c) buidhe 23:16, 20 March 2022 (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_review/Cirrus_cloud/archive1&oldid=1078722990"