This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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?
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)
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)
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?
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).
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)
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)
This article has been tagged with the following:
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)
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)
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)
Amatuer stormchasers die all the time. The exceptional thing about 2013 was it killed pros 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:57E:A282:E2DA:3381 ( talk) 01:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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?
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)
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)
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?
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).
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)
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)
This article has been tagged with the following:
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)
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)
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)
Amatuer stormchasers die all the time. The exceptional thing about 2013 was it killed pros 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:57E:A282:E2DA:3381 ( talk) 01:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)