Talk:Urban heat island/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay in responding. Superficially, this article has all the appearances of a good article: it appears to be well-illustrated, well-referenced and it has a good WP:lead. However, the section on Causes worries me, so I might skip over this one and then come back to it later. Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to work through the article section by section, but leaving the Lead until last. However, in this case I might consider the Lead twice.

• WP:Lead (1st pass) -

• This appears to be a good introduction to the article.

:* It should also summarise the main points of the article - I don't intend to consider this here.

• Change of plan. The lead does not mention global warming. Working through the references in Testing of theory, I came across discussion of possible confusion with gobal warming, then there is a nice section on Relation to global warming; so this needs to be concisely summarised and added to the WP:Lead.

• Causes -

• I'm not considering this section in detail yet.
• However, the third paragraph gives the example: The difference in temperature between an inner city and its surrounding suburbs is frequently mentioned in weather reports: e.g., "68 degrees downtown, 64 in the suburbs". I presume these are degrees F - but as this article aspires to being a GA, that uncertainty is not acceptable; and you aught to give the Celsius equivalents in brackets.

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• This needs a reference: "The color black absorbs significantly more electromagnetic radiation, and causes the surfaces of roads and highways to heat up substantially".

•  Done; Nice reference. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Testing of theory -

• Is there a typo in the first paragraph? This sentence, seems poorly constructed: "After trends were adjusted in urban weather stations around the world to match rural stations in their regions, in an effort to homogenise the temperature record, 42% warmed the urban trends: which is to say that in 42% of cases, the cities were getting cooler relative to their surroundings rather than warmer.

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is some ambiguity in the second paragraph, i.e "with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher, and thus cooler, than urban areas". What is "higher" a measurement of - height, altitude, temperture, etc?

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Made an attempt to tackle those two concerns. Hopefully, the text should be clearer, and less ambiguous, now. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look again for a reference that black absorbs more heat. This concept is so old, I could not find it clearly stated in any primary sources, certainly not research papers from the 20th century onward. I'll add the F/C convert templates as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, if necessary, I could probably find a physics book ref for "black absortion"; and then we don't need to worry so much about roads/highways. Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I feel more comfortable that this is GA material, we just need to clean up a few minor points.

...continuing tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Diurnal behavior -

• Compliant with WP:WIAGA; but it would be nice if the date of Luke Howard's work was added; and, I suspect that you mean "air temperature difference (or differential)" rather than "air temperature".

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Other impacts on weather and climate -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Health effects -

• Appears to be compliant, but ref 31 has changed its web address and there is an automatic redirect.

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Impact on energy usage -

• Appears to be compliant.

• • Think I've taken care of your recent concerns. Let me know if I have not. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Just fixed ref 31, per your comments above. The Internet Wayback Machine is a wonderful thing. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Per your earlier comment regarding global warming in the lead, there are a couple lines about it in the lead already...originally there was only one, so I'm guessing you added the other. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mitigation -

• Ref 32 34 is a 72 page report, so a page number is required. (Sorry my typo) Pyrotec (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 36 is a 172 page report, so a page number is required.
• Otherwise OK.

• Relation to global warming -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Causes (2nd pass) -

• 1st paragraph:- I don't have access to ref 3, so I can't check this directly myself. The 1st sentence worries me a bit. I would suggest that the buildings block the ground from receiving heat radition (from the sun) during the daytime; so instead the heat radiation heats up the buildings. Therefore, the buildings have available heat to radiate at nighttime and so they are acting as a heat source in place of the ground. Perhaps that is what you are intended to write, but it could be read to mean the opposite, as its not all that clear. The remainder of the paragraph (still) makes sense as it discusses the differences between buildings and ground.

• 2nd paragraph:- the paragraph "Another effect of buildings is the blocking of wind, which also inhibits cooling by convection" worries me. I don't have access to ref 3, so I can't check this directly myself; however the rest of the paragraph appears to make sense. I vaguely rememeber seeing TV programmes about skyscraper buildings in cities; and the local microclimate around the buildings. From memory the "urban canyon effect" produces quite strong winds around the foot of the buildings; and that would suggest to me that there is increased cooling at ground level due to increased wind speed during the daytime and possibly during night time. There could also be vertical heat mixing, due to turbulance.

• The WP:lead -

• This appears to be both a good introduction to the article and a summary of the main points, so in the main it is compliant.
• Perhaps I missed it in the body of the article, but the lead states that "Seasonally, UHI is larger in winter than in summer" whereas in Clauses it states "Seasonally, UHI shows up both in summer and winter". The lead appears to be "teasing" the reader with some (only a bit) of information that may not be in the body of the article.

Pyrotec (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've dealt with the new issues. The heat retention properties of materials used in cities is the primary cause of overnight warmth, and a tidbit of this has been added to the lead. Since concrete has such a significant retention of heat when compared to the ground, it wouldn't need as much direct sun during the day to be a factor, so I've left those lines in but decreased their emphasis. Overall, cities significantly increase friction between the winds blowing over a city and the winds near street level. The wind increase in urban canyons due to the buildings in city blocks does not compensate for the increased friction reducing winds within urban heat islands. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Placed a page number with ref 36. Ref 32 doesn't appear to need one, because that webpage is short, and not multiple pages long. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, typo on my part; it should be Ref 34, not 32. Pyrotec (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The page number was added for ref 34. The reference was for the graph on page 14. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A interesting, well-referenced article.

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:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)