Talk:National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois

Name of the article

The official name of this office is the National Weather Service Forecast Office, Lincoln, Illinois. Of course, this is a clumsy name for a wikipedia article. I appreciate the compromise used in the article's name, but a shorter name might be more useful, such as Central Illinois weather forecast office or Lincoln, Illinois weather forecast office. The fact that it is part of the National Weather Service can be embedded within the main article and doesn't particularly need to be in the lead. Thoughts? Thegreatdr (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yah since this pages inception I have struggled with the naming. This is the very first article for a WFO, too my knowledge hence there was no pre-established naming convention or project guideline. I went between either National Weather Service Forecast Office, Lincoln, Illinois, National Weather Service Lincoln and National Weather Service Central Illinois. I choose the later as it was a simplified title, and is used on here. I also chose that name due to the changing location of the main NWS office from Springfield to Peoria to Lincoln hence Central Illinois. I don't much like "Central Illinois weather forecast office" or "Lincoln, Illinois weather forecast office" as this could literally mean a host of things, such as a local tv station who does weather, or an independent forecast office. I think the best solution would be to use National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois as that seems to conform with the precedent with other WFOs. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That last one would be best, since it fits in with other WFO articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

To Work On list (specifics)

• 2b: Reference 8 is unreliable.

• Not sure what happened to that ref but it would seem that the part of it that was important to the article got removed and is now pay-per view. I did however cite the NWS history page, which has basically the same info. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ok, we can leave it for now as we are sourcing the article, not the site there. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2b: ISBN's for those books?

• The books in question pre-date the ISBN system which became prevalent in the 1970s. However the books that are more recent all have assigned ISBNs, listed with the ref. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Understandable, if it is found, it would be nice to have them. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• 3b: Opertaions is really short, and does not have that much detail. Room to expand.

• I've expanded, added detail on the general operations of forecasters, and other employees. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• 3a: is it possible to say any major events that the service has covered?

• Yes it is possible, however due to the history of NWS Lincoln and its predecessors there are almost too many incidents to cover without it turning out like WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is probably more akin to a article on the climatology of Central Illinois (which I would like to create). But if you can shoot me an idea about how to include it I will be more then happy to add the information. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking more just some of the major ones (with a breif overview), and then when you create the article, you can put the main article template up. Is this possible? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I will get on it right now. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have created a new section with the information you have requested, listing storms that NWS Lincoln or its predecessors have a documented role in forecasting or other duties. I hope you find it acceptable. thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 15:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done This is short enough for the artice, but not too short. I like it :) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion, the reviewer will change that their selfs.

• Thank you for the review, I will address the issues you have cited over the next day. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 19:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • At least one of the floods of 1956-1957 which struck Illinois could be relevant here. See the external link section of Hurricane Audrey for more on those, and other, flood events which impacted Illinois. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes it would seem many tropical cyclones (after transitioning into extra-tropical systems) have caused flooding events, Hurricane Ike comes to mind. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the word many should be used in relation to flooding in Illinois from tropical cyclones. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)