Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Two sources on which I have questions  
1 comment  




2 GA Review  
65 comments  


2.1  Second Opinion by Femkemilene  





2.2  Third Opinion by LightandDark2000  





2.3  Comment by Chidgk1  





2.4  Final assessment  







3 More graphics might make this easier to understand  
8 comments  




4 Source for possible inclusion  
1 comment  













Talk:Pacific Meridional Mode




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Two sources on which I have questions[edit]

This source discusses correlations between PMM and precession and this one between PMM and insolation but I am not entirely certain exactly what the correlation is, as the sources discuss PMM in standalone paragraph with no clear connection to high/low precession/insolation values. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pacific Meridional Mode/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) 10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I will try to review this as I can do. I am new to reviewing GA, so any assistance could be helpful. MarioJump83! 10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First assessment (the final one will be not in the table form)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. This article has been done by someone from WP:GOCE, as such this article passes this criteria.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The article is very clearly within the MOS guidelines. Regarding embedded lists, the information presented are better suited to a list.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Certainly passed.
2b. 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). The large majority of this article are from academic sources.
2c. it contains no original research. Nearly all, if not all of this article are sourced to the reliable sources, and for all purposes this article passed.
2d. it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism. Thanks Chidgk1 for help.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The coverage are definitely outstanding, I don't think that there is much out of scope.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Some parts of the article might be too complicated, I am not very sure.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The POV from this article is neutral from what I have seen.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Based on the edit history of this article, this is definitely stable for many reasons.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Pass.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Two of these images are relevant to the topic.
7. Overall assessment. This article is close to passing all GA criteria, but I have some slight concerns with two of these criteria, which is possible complications. and plagiarism/direct copies from the sources to the article.
That's my assessment. This is based on my quick review of the article - please note that I will probably miss some of them. I don't give any suggestions regarding the GA, it will be done by LightandDark2000. MarioJump83! 03:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed some. MarioJump83! 22:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion by Femkemilene[edit]

Third Opinion by LightandDark2000[edit]

I will also review this article. In addition, I will try to grab one of the other senior editors with more of a background in meteorology (such as Hurricane Noah) to ensure that this article is accurate and comprehensive in coverage. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try review this article next weekend, when I have more time. Anyway, I'm glad to see that one of the other reviewers feels that this article is quite comprehensive. I always look for comprehensive coverage and solid writing, even in GA candidates. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Concept
Triggers
Growth and demise
Effects
Precipitation
ENSO
Tropical cyclones
Similar phenomena in other oceans
South Pacific Meridional Mode
PMM variations
PMM and anthropogenic climate change
Name and use
Images

These are all of the issues that I have identified. While the article is quite comprehensive and well-written, there are a handful of issues that need to be resolved before it can be promoted to GA status, including an severe hyperlink issue. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to red link policy, red links should be present only if new articles will be created for those subjects. If new articles will be created for those topics in the near future, then I guess I can tolerate them. Otherwise, I think that this article is ready. I also got an informal review from Hurricane Noah off-wiki, and he believes that the article does not have any major issues. I'll let MarioJump83 make the call to promote this article, since he was the original reviewer. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not "in the near future" for lack of time but I am certain that the redlinked topics meet WP:N. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Chidgk1[edit]

MarioJump83 Can you tick off above that there is no plagiarism or copyvio? I did not find any on a quick look with the Earwig tool. If not can you explain any concern or question? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. MarioJump83! 22:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final assessment[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a(prose, spelling, and grammar): b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a(reference section): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR): d(copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

There is no much other than this article passes the 3b criteria since the first assessment, so I don't have any comments other than this passes for GA. MarioJump83! 03:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More graphics might make this easier to understand[edit]

As someone who has never heard of the subject before I found this article very encyclopedic but rather hard to understand. I wonder if more graphics, or even an animated graphic, might help.

I am not artistic myself but for a few graphics in the past I have explained what I thought was needed to Commons:Graphic Lab and they have drawn a very good graphic. For example for the simple English article about the automobile Ian Furst drew an excellent schematic https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile#/media/File:Simple_Electric_Car_propulsion_diagram.svg Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1:A lot more graphs would certainly help, but we'd need some pretty precise ideas as to what they would show. Which questions would in your opinion be best answered by a graph? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Please correct me if I have misunderstood as I am completely new to the subject. But if I understand right this is a variation over the year, a snapshot of which is shown in the existing diagram. So how about if you ask the graphics wizkids to make an animation showing how it "develops during the winter months and spreads southwestward towards the equator and the central and western Pacific during spring" as you descrbe? Presumably they would just need to vary the direction and length of the wind arrows and the color of the sea under your instructions? And the animation would name the changing months of the year. Also when I first glanced at the diagram I thought the arrows were the actual wind speed - but now if I understand right they are a variation on the average wind? I had to look up the meaning of "regression pattern" but I am not sure how to best describe that so people understand. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good understanding. I haven't seen a source that shows a graphical progression, though, so I am not sure whether someone could make a graphic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a queue of requests for the graphics wizards so it may take a while. But once they are on the case I have found them very good. I did not find anything very close but there are a couple of existing animations which you might refer to when explaining what is needed (see right)
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record (hd video)
and
Wind vectors and monthly average CO2 concentrations in 2003
and there are a lot of video diagrams on Wikimedia and UK Met Office on Youtube. As you have such a good understanding of the subject I am sure with the aid of the article and perhaps a few rough sketches you could explain what might be useful. When you say "and the reverse during its negative state" is that simply a matter of reversing the arrows and colors on the diagram? If you are going for FA in future I think it would be worth a try. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we need some template images. I am thinking Figure 1d-g, Figure 1 and Figure 2 could be useful not I am not sure on their copyright status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect by the time the animators have done their stuff the result will be sufficiently different from the template images for copyright not to be a problem. When the final version is put on Wikimedia Commons it could be described as "adapted from ....." in order to credit them. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've put such a request in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source for possible inclusion[edit]

...here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pacific_Meridional_Mode&oldid=1209583611"

Categories: 
Wikipedia good articles
Natural sciences good articles
Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
GA-Class Oceans articles
Low-importance Oceans articles
WikiProject Oceans articles
GA-Class Environment articles
Mid-importance Environment articles
GA-Class Climate change articles
Mid-importance Climate change articles
WikiProject Climate change articles
GA-Class Weather articles
High-importance Weather articles
GA-Class Tropical cyclone articles
High-importance Tropical cyclone articles
WikiProject Tropical cyclones articles
GA-Class General meteorology articles
High-importance General meteorology articles
WikiProject Weather articles
 



This page was last edited on 22 February 2024, at 16:31 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki