Talk:Squall line

Squall line 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
June 7, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
June 3, 2025	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes High‑importance

	Weather portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as High-importance).

GA Review

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

Very nice job with the article DR! I only have one issue with it, the radar loop of the ET storm in 2008 is making the page very slow. Can you find a way to make it so that the image doesn't slow down the page? (this wont hold it back from passing GAN though). Since everything looks good, I'm passing the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"derecho" in Spanish means "Right", not "straight". Otherwise helpful article.

Image of squall line

A reader supplied an image which may be useful for this page. File:Squall_line_Springfield_IL.jpg--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that part of the cloud is labeled "shell cloud" in that graphic. I think that is supposed to be "shelf" cloud. 65.35.103.170 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text corrected. Pierre cb (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to send it to GAR. (not an involved editor) Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, sure! Glad I saw this before the GAR was opened. — E_F⁵ 23:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wildfireupdateman and EF5: Would either of you be interested in working on this article before it was sent to GAR? If not, would you like to nominate to GAR? I post lots of GARs so having new editors working on articles allows for more perspectives. I am happy to help if requested. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll work on it. Every tab on my Chromebook is currently showing "this website is not private" (indicative of an error), so it may be a day before i get to adding citations and generally cleaning it up. E_F⁵ 15:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Narrow cold-frontal rainband into Squall line

Both articles are talking about the same thing : a narrow line of convective clouds associated with a sharply defined cold front. The the Narrow cold-frontal rainband should be thus merge into Squall line more known term. Pierre cb (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

while both squall lines and NCFR have similar meteorological features, the NCFR is unique enough to deserve its article. I would thus still leave the NCFR article as its standalone article. Cocoabon (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the difference then, I cannot? Pierre cb (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per this: These NCFRs typically contain weak convective (buoyant) instability that contrasts with quasi-linear convective rainbands associated with squall lines, which often contain stronger convective instability. — EF5 ^(questions?) 13:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. "These things look alike and as such are the same" usually isn't something that is applied in the field of meteorology. — EF5 ^(questions?) 13:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could be resolved by adding something about the similarities and the distinction to both articles? Ike9898 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good idea. I’ll do some research Cocoabon (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per above. There's a lot here that will get lost if this is merged and it's well-sourced enough as an encyclopedic concept. Departure– (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per @Departure– Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Squall line

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including a section that has had a "This section has no sources" orange banner since February 2024. Z1720 (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist No edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.