Abstract In a recent article, Qian et al. introduced the quantities moist vorticity and moist divergence to diagnose locations of heavy rain. These quantities are constructed by multiplying the relative vorticity and divergence by relative humidity to the power k, where k = 10 in their article. Their approach is similar to that for the previously constructed quantity generalized moist potential vorticity. This comment critiques the approach of Qian et al., demonstrating that the moist vorticity, moist divergence, and by extension generalized moist potential vorticity are flawed mathematically and meteorologically. Raising relative humidity to the 10th power is poorly justified and is based on a single case study at a single time. No meteorological evidence is presented for why areas of moist vorticity and moist divergence should overlap with regions of 24-h accumulated rainfall. All three quantities have not been verified against the output of precipitation directly from the model nor is the approach of combining meteorological quantities into a single parameter appropriate in an ingredients-based forecasting approach. Researchers and forecasters are advised to plot the model precipitation directly and employ an ingredients-based approach, rather than rely on these flawed quantities.