Clinfowiki

	Wind shear was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 10, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Gliding This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article is supported by the gliding project. Physics: Fluid Dynamics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce. Weather: Tropical / Non-tropical / Thunderstorms / Tornadoes / General Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Added references and a couple sections regarding wind shear's effects on thunderstorm formation and tropical cyclones. Thegreatdr 16:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is good enough for B class. If not, useful comments for it reaching B class would be appreciated. Thegreatdr 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good article! I'm going to send it to WP:GAN. -Runningonbrains 12:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the writing in this article isn't really up to GA standard. The second paragraph in the lead is a very blank summary of the main headlines, with no variation in sentence structure and no common theme tying the statements together. The section on when and where wind shear is observed really ought to be in prose form rather than in bullet points. And the final three sections have only two sentences each, which really leads to the suspicion that they could do with some expansion.

Please feel free to resubmit once these points have been addressed. MLilburne 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be merged with wind gradient? It looks like the articles define it identically. Thegreatdr 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either they should remain separate (and expanded), or gradient should be merged here. Wind shear is the chief term and of multiple usage in meteorology. The Glossary of Meteorology (AMS, 2001) doesn't list wind gradient but defines wind shear as follows:

wind shear—The local variation of the wind vector or any of its components in a given direction.

The vertical shear can be expressed in terms of height ∂V/∂z or of pressure ∂V/∂p as the vertical coordinate. If the wind is geostrophic, the vertical shear is given by the thermal wind equation. The wind shear at a point is said to be cyclonic or anticyclonic according to whether the sense of rotation from the wind vector to the shear vector at that point is cyclonic or anticyclonic.

Evolauxia 19:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the other article would be merged into this one, if merger is deemed acceptable. I can't imagine both articles being expanded. It would be like having two articles, with one named thermal wind and another called wind shear. Same deal. Thegreatdr 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. There is also a thermal wind article! This could be merged in as well, since thermal wind is another term used for vertical wind shear. Thegreatdr 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and add redirects. One concise and thorough article is better than many short ones. --Patar knight 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The downburst definition doesn't seem to match the link to the downburst article. --Gbleem 11:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started cleaning up this article, and the more I did, the more work I found. First, the lede does not fully define and develop the subject. The article also needs further development, as it focuses heavily on aviation aspects, and does not cover other areas much. Also, it fails to compare and contrast high vs. low level and vertical vs. horizontal wind shear. More research and references are also needed. Dhaluza 11:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. This article isn't close to GA yet. Last time I edited the article, I did not fully comprehend the concept of a wikipedia lead. Thegreatdr 11:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been completely reorganized per the new information included from wind gradient and the cleanup tag has been removed. Thegreatdr 13:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article still contains obvious grammatical errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemcclelland (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are woring cross purposes now, because I am still working on the content at wind gradient, and the differences will be lost. Please remove the bulk of the that content now, and reorganize and expand this article first. In particular, it needs to be expanded to cover the more general cases first. Then we can see where this fits. For example you have lumped the effects on flight together, but there are many different ways wind shear affects aviation, e.g. microbursts, lee waves, wind gradient, and they are completely different cause and effects. Dhaluza 15:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment on the wind gradient article. I could live with the differentiation I spelled out on that talk page, and it would appear to fall in line with the gradient and shear articles within wikipedia. This is my second attempt to compromise with you on this topic which would allow for two articles rather than one. Right now, scholarly references overwhelmingly favor wind shear over wind gradient otherwise, per a check made by someone else. I just don't see the differences between the two topics, since both emphasize changes of winds on the microscale (particularly in the vertical) and their effects. Clearly differentiate wind gradient from this article, somehow, and there wouldn't be this problem. Thegreatdr 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the reply at Talk:wind gradient. As far as references, they are cited in the wind gradient article, and you can check them at Google or Amazon, and all appear to be reliable. This is not necessarily a case of either/or or right/wrong. I would expect that since wind gradient generally refers to a special case, there would be less reference material on it, but there is more than enough to support that article.

As for this article, dropping in the bulk of the content from there has taken this article from needs cleanup, to needs cleanup^2. My strong suggestion is to take most of it back out, and clean this up by addressing the issues already identified above. I would recommend organizing this article to fully develop high-level vs. low-level and vertical vs. horizontal wind shear first. I think once that is done, it will make sense to take the special case of "low-level vertical shear of horizontal wind with a logarithmic velocity profile" (whatever it is called), and paraphrase the content in the wind gradient article with a {{main}} link to the other article. Dhaluza 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal wind shear is talked about within the weather fronts line, and is talked about within the weather fronts article. There is wind shear near the jet stream which hasn't been discussed...I can add that in easy enough. Most of the important effects of wind shear lie near the top of the planetary boundary layer, or just above vertical slices of frontal zones/outflow boundaries/squall lines and on the lower periphery of the low level jet. Ekman layer and Ekman spiral (which have merge tags) and planetary boundary layer already discuss what you appear to be proposing for wind gradient. If that is what you are proposing, move the information you're developing over to planetary boundary layer or ekman layer. It would still call for wind gradient to become a redirect. Thegreatdr 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of the important meteorological wind shear effects happen above the surface, and these are not well developed yet in this article. It also does not address horizontal shear of horizontal wind vs. vertical shear of horizontal wind, or vertical shears in detail. For example, the word "convergence" does not even appear in this article, and there is no link to Convergence zone or shear line. Dhaluza 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks are now added for convergence zone and shear line. Thegreatdr 02:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGESTION: Another cause of windshear is a CONVERGENCE ZONE, like a seabreaze front —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.79.65 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it appears that wind gradient has little chance of being merged in with this article, and the details in the lead fit the article below, I've nominated it anew for GA. Thegreatdr 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job cleaning the article up and recasting it in summary style. I would suggest you address the two specific suggestions above to cover convergence zone and shear line (meterology) as well. Also some additional references would be good, for example the lead as well as the "Definition", "Weather fronts" and "Thermal wind" sections have no inline cites. Good luck with the GA nom. Dhaluza 14:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added inline references to definition, weather fronts, and thermal wind sections. Thegreatdr 04:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC

On Hold

This article passes a lot of criteria, and based on the references, it appears to be correct too. However:

1. In my opinion the article is not layman-friendly. It relies too much on jargon much of which needs to be explained to consider this article accessible and well-written.
2.  Done At the time I reviewed this at the start of the month, at least two paragraphs were not referenced. (If a reference convers all the text in a section, either refer to it multiple times or put it at the far bottom).
3. I also think that the lead should be referenced for people who read that as a summary and go no further as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
4.  Done The "see also" section is overloaded with duplicate links from elsewhere in the article.
5.  Done In the "effects on tropical cyclones"-section it says "in the direction of the shear". If wind shear is a difference windspeed or direction - let's say it's strong west 5 here and weak north 1 a couple of miles south - then what is the direction of the shear? I think that's impossible to say without laying down the rules or clarifying what you have already. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have rewritten the article to be more easily understood. Removed the duplicate links from the see also section as well. Also added links to paragraphs where links were missing. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

• The "effects on tropical cyclones"-section is still too complicated. I've asked for a second opinion on the word usage. -- Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's down to two lines. I can't imagine stating it simpler, unfortunately. Does anyone have an idea of how it can be reworded to be more understandable? Thegreatdr 08:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reworked it to be more lay friendly. Dhaluza 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first line of the article says that Wind shear is sometimes called wind gradient, yet wind gradient has its own article, and appears to be a separate but related phenomenon? The sections in this article on flight and architecture use "wind gradient". Perhaps the "definition" section could explain what the difference is, and the flight section state why gradient is used, not shear? Jonathan Oldenbuck 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wish I understood the difference completely. According to Dhaluza, it appears wind gradient is used in some circles to talk about frictional effects within the planetary boundary layer, close to the ground (very low level wind shear). We would need a reference explaining what the definition of wind gradient is before including it in this or any article. I changed the gradient wording to low level wind shear to avoid the issue. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Outside meteorology, wind gradient is commonly used to refer to frictional (or, more technically, drag) effects from surface interaction with the wind. It is a special case of vertical shear of horizontal wind at the bottom of the atmosphere. The separate article on wind shear is intended to deal with this specific case and its implications, and this article should only address wind gradient in summary style leaving the main points to the dedicated article. This article still contains much duplicated material copied from that article. Dhaluza (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for someone who is not an expert in the field - you got one. :-)

• This sentence: "The meteorological concept of thermal wind deals with how differences in wind with height are dependent on horizontal temperature differences." is convoluted and confusing.
  • Tried to simplify the beginning of the sentence...but cannot think of a way of simplying section after "deals with" Thegreatdr (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done The thermal wind equation section : "Since f is small or zero there" By f do you mean ? it's not immediately obvious to a non-expert that these are the same.
•  DoneThe main article notes are overused. These are supposed to point to an article that has more detail on the topic of the paragraph than can fit in this section. "When Wikipedia articles become too large, subarticles are usually created. This template is used to mark the section of the "Main" article that was separated to add a link to the new article." That's not what they're being used for.
  •  Done Sailing, for example, has darn little on wind shear and sailing - I can't find the term mentioned in the article at all. It should be at most a See also, but frankly, since it has so little relevant information, I'd leave it out altogether - the links around the word sailboats, sail twist, etc., should more than suffice. Same for several others, I'm sure.
•  Done Wind engineering is a field of engineering ... Wind Engineering draws upon meteorology ... - decide whether or not to capitalize the E and stick to it.
• All that said, this is a good article, and I mean it in the formal sense. These are just minor tweaks and can be easily fixed. I haven't reviewed many GAs (yet!), but I think it's ready for promotion. Beautiful photos, excellent references, well organized, and probably as simple as it can be without being actually incorrect. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be willing to promote it. If it were going for FA, that might require a bit more scrutiny to see if it's "perfect", but it's fairly clearly "good", even Good. Mgm, disagree? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to add some comments for the GA review as a gliding instructor and private pilot if I may:
•  DoneThe definition para could be better, I looked for an official definition but could not find one. A speed of 30 knots is mentioned, the FAA in this 64 page circular FAA windshear advisory circular states that 40 to 50 knots would be significant for a large airliner. This speed would be much less for light aircraft.
•  DoneAgain in the definition para there are mixed units, metres per second is given for horizontal velocities but metres per minute are given for vertical velocities, this should also be metres per second.
• Wind gradient/wind shear seems to be an insolvable problem. Glider pilots in the UK would know the loss of airspeed on approach to be caused by the wind gradient. Powered flying training books I have call it wind shear.
•  DoneThe gliding paragraph is very good, I would note that ground launch is more commonly known as a winch launch or wire launch. The term ground launch is a redirect to the gliding article where the launches are described as winch/wire.
  • Will try to find an appropriate reference for this. Do you know any offhand? Thegreatdr (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually ground launch is the correct generic term which covers both winch launch and auto tow. Dhaluza (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  DoneIt could be mentioned in the dynamic soaring section that this technique has been recently discovered by slope soaring aeromodellers and allows their model gliders to reach extremely high speeds.
  • Added this information into the dynamic soaring subarticle. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should help as I have just nominated an article for GA myself, I think this article is nearly there, cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC has passed on this article. Congrats. Juliancolton (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wind shear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Windshear.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wind shear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080118235955/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/weather/features/understanding/jetstreams_uk.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/jetstreams_uk.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wind shear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009144924/http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/wind_shear.html to http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/wind_shear.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wind shear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121051137/http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/spring06/trex.jsp to http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/spring06/trex.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The atmospheric science community uses define "horizontal shear" and "vertical shear" in terms of the direction for the velocity gradient. In other parts of sciences and mathematics (e.g., fluid dynamics, continuum mechanics, conformable mapping, etc.), the the direction of shear refers to the orientation of the shear plane, not the velocity gradient. I am not not suggesting a change in definition, but simply a note to indicate that "horizontal shear" and "vertical shear" are used in a different sense in atmospheric sciences. I leave this as a suggestion, and defer to those who have invested in creating this wiki page.

MuTau (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should not "tailwind" be substituted for "headwind" in the section "Impact on passenger aircraft", as it is a tailwind that increases the speed of an aircraft I believe. Krok6kola (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.vpnavy.com/vp17mem_28jun98.html http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hurr/grow/home.rxml. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A GAR will be initiated in seven days if nobody expresses a willingness to correct the following major issues and any potential further ones.

• There are areas needing citations as well as different sources since verification failed.
• There seems to be more topics and newer sources discussing windshear here
• The article seems quite unbalanced with most of it discussing vertical wind shear.

Noah, AA^Talk 01:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wind shear