Talk:Low-pressure area

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Low-pressure area/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

Hi Thegreatdr

i have reviewed this article over for GA Status and im passing it. Well done on improving another important meterology to GA. Jason Rees (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Low-pressure area/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm concerned about the use of jargon. SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The writing is of a good quality - however as it not clear to the average reader what is being described, the article doesn't meet 1 A.

• The article fails 1 B as it doesn't satisfy WP:Lead and WP:Jargon.

There are aspects of the topic discussed in the lead which are not discussed in the main body and there are significant aspect detailed in the main body which are not mentioned in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the article. Examples: "Cyclogenesis" and "polar cyclone" are in lead sentences to sections, but are not mentioned in lead; and "diurnal temperature extremes" and "toughs" are introduced in the lead, but not explained further in the main body.

As regards jargon - the article is very dense, and could only really be followed and understood by someone already well-versed in the subject. It would need to be significantly rewritten to make it understandable to the average reader. The second sentence is an example: "Low pressure systems form under areas of upper level divergence on the east side of upper troughs, or due to localized heating caused by greater insolation or active thunderstorm activity." What is an "upper level divergence", an "upper trough", and "insolation" - and how is localized heating caused by greater insolation? (this is not explained further either in the lead or in the body).

The above serve as examples rather than a full examination of the difficulties. SilkTork *^YES! 11:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that much of the jargon used within the article is wikilinked, and explained in those articles rather than this one, which I thought was ideal. Tried some rewording of the lead to help out, but I'm not sure it's doing any good. We need a lay person to review the article to know what needs clarifying. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I take your point that there are wiki-links, and also external references; however, the article needs to stand by itself. If you feel the material linked to explains the terms adequately, then it would be appropriate to bring that material into this article. The topic is quite a major one, attracting well over a 1,000 views a month (and considerably more than that recently), so it would be quite appropriate to devote some time and space to explaining the topic. As a lay person I would not be able to deal with the article as it currently stands as I do not understand the terms used - I would need to start from scratch by doing appropriate research, and that would take considerable time, and involve a total rewrite of the article. That may also be the case for other lay people. I will leave this for seven days to give you a chance to work on the article. We can discuss the matter again at the start of November. A possible solution is if an expert (say, you) and a lay person (say, me) worked together. I'm not sure if I have the time to get involved in this - but we can discuss that, if necessary, in November. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 14:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a clearer explanation, from here:

Low pressure areas form when an airmass warms, either from being over a warm land or ocean surface, or from being warmed by condensation of water vapor in large rain or snow systems. The warming causes the air layer to expand upward, becoming slightly thicker. This expansion then causes air in the upper troposphere to flow away, leaving less mass, and so less weight (pressure) at the surface. The lower pressure air at the surface then causes higher pressure air around it to flow toward lower pressure, but as it does, the rotation of the Earth turns the wind to the right, resulting in the counter-clockwise wind flow around low pressure (in the Northern Hemisphere...it flows in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere).

— www.weatherquestions.com

I found that easier to follow. SilkTork *^YES! 14:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If it were correct, I'd agree. The first two lines are wrong, in most cases. They're trying to argue that surface effects cause lows to form, rather than some system aloft. While that is true for polar lows and thermal lows, it's not true for most low pressure areas. I've added more, reorganized the lead, and added another line below to counter the addition into the lead. See if this helps. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead is now more detailed - however the edits have not moved toward assisting understanding. I'll put this on hold for seven days to allow time to edit for clarity. I'll check back on or soon after 5 November. This may be helpful: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible as well as WP:Jargon. I have put a {{technical}} tag on the talk page as that brings it to the attention of editors who are interesting in copyediting articles for clarity. If there are any questions in the meantime, please ping my talkpage. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have further refined the wording within the lead, replacing the image with one which shows a simplification of the process of low pressure area formation and maintenance. This was done in accord with the "Make technical article accessible" wikilink. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have made some edits - thank you. I think that exchanging "instigate" for "cause" has been helpful, though not all your edits have been so positive, so the clarity of the article has not significantly improved - in some places it has become more difficult, such as introducing the term Rossby wave without an explanation. I also note that the term is not used in the body. However, as there has been some development I feel it appropriate to put this on hold for another seven days. In seven days time I also might be able to devote some time to assisting with the article, which currently I cannot. SilkTork *^YES! 09:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your general comments have been difficult for me to interpret since I've been using such jargon for 15-20 years, and the comments made have been general. The two wiki articles you asked for me to consult were conflicting when it comes to jargon. One said a wikilink was sufficient, while another said some expansion was necessary, though not so much as to be a tangent to the article. Since your more recent comments were more pointed, I've made an attempt to address those concerns. See what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been an additional two weeks, with no feedback. Where do we stand here? Thegreatdr (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your prompt. I have looked at the article a few times and tried to see the improvement in clarity, and also looked to see if I could make it clearer. It appears that this may be a somewhat time-consuming task, and one that I don't have the time for myself at the moment as I am very busy off-wiki and only have short bursts of time on the internet. I am willing to help, but will need to finish off a couple of other Wikipedia commitments first, and then to find a clear patch of time required to concentrate on the task. As this may be some weeks away, and may take some time when I get down to it, I'll de-list this as not meeting criteria 1, and it can be re-nominated after the work has been done, and someone else can then assess it. SilkTork *^YES! 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Technology for weathering forecast

barometer: a tool used to measure air pressure

thermometer: an instrument used to measure temperature

rain gauge: a device for measuring rainfalls

anemometer: an instrument for measuring wind force —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.207.184 (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that somewhere in all this learned explication about low-pressure etc, one could find information about in which direction the air circulates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.202.206 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Not sure what this line means:

"Tropical cyclones can form during any month of the year globally, but can occur in either the northern or southern hemisphere during November."

Can form anywhere (either hemisphere), anytime (Jan through Nov) But Can form anywhere (either hemisphere), in November.

Do you mean, "Tropical cyclones can form during any month of the year globally, but more frequently in November" ? RainbowCanada (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This reads like it was lifted from a textbook, not crafted for an Encyclopedia

Seriously, this is far too dense and complex for an Encyclopedia article. It reads like it was written by someone who has just graduated and wanted to show off but has zero understanding of how to make the subject accessible to the layman.

Can somebody who actually knows how to write re-draft this into something you don't have to be a climatologist to follow? LeapUK (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation?

I've reverted the moving of this article to Low-pressure area (meteorology). Is there some other kind of "low-pressure area" from which the meteorological kind needs to be disambiguated? If so, there's no sign of it on English Wikipedia. It sure looks to me like this article is the primary topic associated with this title. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0 and Ariadacapo: was the person who moved the page as he wanted to clarify that article covers the meteorological concept, not the general phenomenon as just about any fluid flow will feature low-pressure areas.Jason Rees (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but there's no article in this encyclopedia about that, so there's no potential for confusion. Also, when I Google "low-pressure area", all hits in the first five pages (and probably more) of results are for the meteorological phenomenon; it seems clear to me that the meteorological low is the primary topic of this name. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Bryan, you are right, I now think it was a mistake to do this. The google search is unequivocal, the article is already about what everybody refers to as "Low-pressure area". Thank you for bringing it up. The feeling that led me to rename the article, however, is still there: that this is 100% about meteorology, but this is never made explicit (or at least it not immediately). If I learned about pressure by reading pressure, before heading to the present article, then I would expect from the title and the lead that we are referring to areas of low pressure in general. Low pressure in a blood vessel, above a bird’s wing, or in the wake of a rain drop, for example. I think this would be fixed with a more explicit first sentence. For example: "In meteorology, a low-pressure area, low area or low is a region where the atmospheric pressure is lower than that of surrounding locations." Would that new lead sentence find consensus? -- Ariadacapo (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0 and Jason Rees: I have gone ahead and edited the lead accordingly -- Ariadacapo (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Mass? Or weight?

Section "Formation": "Such upward motions decrease the mass of local atmospheric columns of air, which lowers surface pressure [14]."

Is that indeed mass, or should that read weight? Mass is not affected by forces or motion (weight is). Air moving upwards is not displaced somewhere else (unless there is more than just upward motion, which is not mentioned here), so no mass can leave the column of air referred to here. 2003:D5:D744:F400:EDB6:C46C:7571:A3B1 (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)