Talk:Storm chasing

Influential Storm Chasers

To put it kindly, none of these persons named in that list were able to influence any of the storms they chased. (humor) However, I am not certain creating a who's who list of chasers is of any worthy note. While some of those individuals provided service to meteorology, some persons not on this list may have provided greater service to the science community.

For instance, the undergradute physicist that re-built some high quality research radar (and chased with it) that miraculously caught the last F5 tornado of the 20th century...as a note, was not on that list...

The other side of the coin depicts highly inacurate (aka somebody just trying to help withoutactually knowing what they are doing) storm chasers that have caused undue panic from false reports...the rhetorical question is what is influential?

Dangers involved?

Is there any danger involved? Whether there is or not, the article should address it. After all, being a recreational activity it could be compared to bungee jumping (being fun because it pumps your adredaline and all) because subconsciously it can be perceived as dangerous whether it really is or not. -- Natalinasmpf 02:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done.

Hunt for the Super Twister

I'm not sure that this episode of Nova is influential enough to be noteworthy in this article... tornado footage is more and more common these days. Anyone else agree? -Ottergoose 20:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The 1985 Nova program certainly was significant in growing the ranks of storm chasers. Many chasers can trace this as their first exposure seeding their interest or for finally propelling them to start chasing. At that time there had been almost no public exposure to storm chasing (and a rather limited number of active chasers), amd much less severe weather programs and media coverage in general. Also of some importance and as yet unmentioned in the article are several articles in the 70s-80s in Weatherwise magazine.

TV documentaries

Surely it's legitimate to post links to well-made science TV documentaries that can be viewed, even at a cost, as these contain in-depth data and visual presentation that would be of interest to the readers of this page and otherwise hard to find. Firstscience TV has several storm chasing documentaries available (see below). What do you think?

• "Stormchasers: Fury in the Skies"
• "Stormchasers: Fury on the Plains"
• "When Nature Strikes Back: Chasing Killer Storms"

I know there are restrictions on commercial promotion but how does it differ from a link to a convention say - legitimate in the same way: as a source of information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.210.49 (talk • contribs).

It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be a directory to external sources of information, especially not commercial ones. Femto 14:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The purpose of WP is to provide information to people who are interested in a topic. There is no reason not to provide links to other sources. Redddogg (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Would it be worthwhile to add an "in pop culture" section to this page?

I'm thinking specifically of the movie Twister. Ntay 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Twister is mentioned in the section detailing the history of storm chasing due to its influence in greatly increasing exposure of the activity. However, it and other instances of storm chasing in popular culture could be briefly mentioned in a section devoted to cultural references. Evolauxia (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

Don't know much about storm chasing but came here from a related article. I looked up some storm chasing websites and put them in an 'external links' section like many WP articles have. Soon after they were removed with no comments. I don't see what the problem with it was. Redddogg (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The external links section is not meant to be a links repository (less is more) and should be to sites adding rich material beyond what could be covered in the Wikipedia article. Personal websites are generally not appropriate, especially if it's merely a "link spamming" phenomenon where the function of a link is promotion of a person or organization. The link should add something to the article. This policy is loose; for example, an established storm chaser, recognized as an authority, might be appropriately linked if it provides information directly and in a professional, accessible manner. Links to sites primarily about an individual or organization are generally not. Any links should be very directly related and focused on the subject of the respective article. See WP:EL for more information. Evolauxia (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally checking back in on this project...I think the External links right now are more than sufficient. Maybe a NOAA site, or an international organization could be added, but thats all I can think of.-RunningOnBrains 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Drive by tag

This article has been tagged with the following:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

yet no one has indicated what the specific needs of this tag are. The tag says, It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since October 2008. Now this article currently has fifteen sources. Which part of the article needs sourcing? It's possible that when it was tagged nearly three years ago it had little to no sources, but the problem is when people wantonly tag articles without explanations on the talk page (which is the minimal expectation I have for a tagger) that these articles can sit tagged for years without anything changing. If the lazy buffoons who had tagged this in 2008 had come here and given some indication of what their concerns were, this could have been resolved long ago.

I will remove the tag until such time as the tagger(s) give(s) us some guidance here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Current" section appears to have one footnote indicator in a forest of claims of fact. It could use a few dozen footnotes, or it could just be deleted.

Also, the writing is terrible through most of the article, ranging from jargon-laden prose to sentences that sort of wander into what they are trying to say.

So there's that. Huw Powell (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of Reference

Is the Benjamin Franklin reference entirely relevant? Franklin was studying the electricity generated, not the storm itself. 68.147.241.201 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If Franklin traveled to intercept storms, then it satisfies the definition. The reference however doesn't verify that he moved any distance. Evolauxia (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"C" rating ... nah

It's been ages since many pages have been visited by rating parties. Just have to say that this rates much higher than a C in my book. It's written clearly and well; the text stays factual, but not dry, conveying a sense of enthusiasm for the chase and the awe ... very non-dinosaur-encyclopedic. Salud! Twang (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It is at least B class but to go any higher requires passing a nomination process. Evolauxia (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As usual with these weather articles, the writing is abysmal, with countless grammar, usage, and spelling errors. I'd give it a D. Antimatter33 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Antimatter. The writing is shoddy, the tone is subjective, claims of fact are unreferenced... it's more like a newspaper or magazine article than one in an encyclopedia. Huw Powell (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)