Wikipedia:Peer review/Cirrus cloud/archive1

Cirrus cloud

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking this article to FA. I've gotten it from a little poorly-sourced article to DYK and to GA, and now want to take it on. I'd appreciate any comments on anything that needs improvement. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJHall:

The paragraph that begins "Scientists discovered cirrus cloud characteristics from..." seems out of place for the Description section; almost like an interlude. I think you could move that to a section about Observation and expand it a little.
"Cirrus cloud cover varies by time of day and by season. The researchers who studied this via satellite data only looked at the data for the United States. They found that in the summer, at noon, the cover is the lowest, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus clouds." Mention of the researchers and their location in the US seems a little diverting here. You could say, for example, "Based upon satellite observations for the United States, cirrus cloud cover varies by time of day and by season. In the summer, at noon, the cover is the lowest, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus clouds."
There is information about cirrus cloud cover in the Formation section. This could be combined with the above.
In the Formation section, cirrus cloud formation by aircraft is mentioned in two different paragraphs. These can be combined for flow.
"In addition", "have also been", "can also be", "There are other" and "also occur" are additive terms. Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.
There are some inconsistencies with the bibliography citations. Author names should be presented the same way, but the article has "Minnis, Patrick", "Ryo Miyazaki", "Sheets, Robert C." and "Kenneth Sassen". Please pick one approach and stick with it.

I hope these observations helped a little. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but due to homework I haven't been able to edit as much as usual. I'll get on these now! :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks. RJH (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]