Talk:Severe weather/Archive 1

Overhaul Needed
This article is good as is but needs a major expansion and diversification. At present this article deals only with summer severe weather and uses a very narrow definition and does not support a global perspective. I will expand it to include all types of severe weather and sub-phenomenon including winter weather. I will also throw some of my picture on the commons showing storm damage or severe weather and put them in the article. Theonlysilentbob (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The British Red Cross list some useful tips for being prepared for severe weather, and highlight not only the environmental impact, but also the human one. It would be great for this aspect to be covered in the expansion and diversification too. Bradman1981 (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure in the expansion to keep it away from such topics as heavy rain or extremely cold temperatures. Before it was given an overhaul to get it to its present state, all there was was a very long list of any weather that could ever make a human uncomfortable outdoors. Ks0stm (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Updating
I'm going to try to update the termology or defination of a severe weather. Should I add that it should not be confused with severe weathering? As the terms are similar, yet they have different meanings.(KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm puzzling over something right now. Is monsoons considered to be a form of severe weather? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Only the flooding that they bring. Ks0stm ( T • C ) 16:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To Do List
I have a few ideas and topics we can add to the Severe weather article and I think it would be best to share it with everyone working on this article. Any new suggestions, opinons, and comments would be considered.

Here is a list of topics I believe we can cover upon the subject of the Severe weather article to help expand it:
 * Add a section that discuss how Severe weather occurrences may be affected by artifical and natural changes.

Artifical section includes everythings influenced by human activity, such as Global Warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. Natural section includes everything that occurs naturally that may have an effect on the frequency or the cause of severe weather events. Such examples include: volcanic eruptions(the dust particles released into the atmosphere) and El Nino. These two section should all go as a subcategory under a main category entitled "Influences Upon Severe Weather" or something similar to that.


 * Add a section that discuss various methods humans have used to prevent or reduce the damage caused by severe weather phenomenons.

Examples include planting vegetation and opening bodies of water to reduce possibilities of flooding.


 * Improve information listed in "Location/Frequent Occurrences" and perhaps "Harzards"

Opinons, agreements, disagreements, more suggestions, or any comments upon this plan for additional expansion? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to see this article is finally getting some attention. I have a few comments:
 * I'm not sure that acid rain belongs under the banner of severe weather. I'd like to see a reference for this.
 * Needs to cover all weather phenomena which are definitely "severe" (with references), including European windstorms
 * General polishing for grammar, style, etc., although I'm sure that will come with time.
 * I'll get to working on this soon, I promise. It's going to be tough with all the alternate definitions of "severe weather" floating around, but I'm sure we'll get through. - Running On Brains (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I put acid rain as a subcategory for one of the harzards of thunderstorms. It was a subcategory because acid rain only occasionally happen during thunderstorm occurrences and it required a bit more information to explain how it works. Hope that clarifies. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we only have a few more severe weather phenomena left to cover:
 * Heatwaves
 * Coldwaves
 * Derecho
 * Downburst
 * Hailstorms
 * Waterspouts
 * Dust Storms
 * Dust Devils - Perhaps a subsection of tornadoes with its development and Waterspouts?(in correspondance with the tornado article)
 * Wake Low
 * And a few local severe weather events

Correct me if I'm wrong, or add on to the list. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since a derecho is a squall line, it is already covered. Adding a line differentiating the two might be helpful though.  Downburst should be added, and include lines talking about microbursts and macrobursts . Waterspout should be easy enough...the article is up for GA review right now, so using its lead and adding refs should be easy enough .  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added information regarding hailstorms to the article. The original section about hail was merged along with the information concerning hailstorm. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources Of Information
Here is a few sources that we can probably use for researching:

*Windows To The Universe

This website contains information on various severe weather phenomenons, including formation and harzards. Resourceful, though note that not all weather phenomenons are included.
 * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's main website

Contains resourceful information on severe weather events. Charts, graphs, and other important visuals are also included.

*[http://library.thinkquest.org ThinkQuest

A series of website created by various individuals and groups. Contains information on Meteorology. A search is required in the search box to find your required information.

Any other website containing sufficent amount of information useful for the research of this project, please add here.

KnowledgeRequire (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this article ever hopes to go to FA, we should probably avoid the Windows to the Universe and Thinquest sites. I got pinged on them when trying to use them during the Wind FAC.  Books and journal articles are ideal.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Should the section of "What To Do During Severe Weather Phenomenon" be removed? It doesn't fit into the category of an encyclopedia, being more of a guide. What do you think? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct...there are specific policies against writing articles like a "How-to". There could be a "Safety" section, but you'd have to be sure to write it in an encyclopedic fashion. See Tornado for an example. - Running On Brains (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Flawed structure - but where do we go from here?
The current structure of the article is significantly flawed. We need to find a more cohesive and/or logical way of organizing information within this article. Any ideas? Thegreatdr (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. But I guess it would be easier to first present some examples of the flaws of this article, before we start.
 * KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've begun the work to reorganize the structure more logically. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, from the new structure, I do agree it's more organized than the previous article edits. However, we going to have to divide the sections upon formation/development and hazards for each severe weather. For example, thunderstorms will have a separate subsection discussing about the formation/development and another discussing the hazards. Is that okay? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We can either do that, or just contain all the information within a hazard's subsection. Whatever you start to do today, I'll follow.  But we have to be aware of the size limitations, now that we're nearing 50 kb and 42% of what the overall prose size should be limited to.  The biggest thing we're lacking right now is a tornado section.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll been working on that. However, during research I come across two explanation for how a tornado actually develops. Do tornadoes really develop in various ways, or is it that those two explanations are somewhat related? I need clarificaiton. Once that's settled, I'll publish the Tornado on the main article. Here are links to the tornado formations: 1 and 2 KnowledgeRequire (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While there are two different ways thunderstorms can develop a tornado, those two links are the same method. One type develops from supercells, which has significant wind shear, while the other type forms more due to extreme buoyancy, which is the weaker, waterspout-like type.  Since tornado was an FA the last time I checked, you can borrow prose from that article concerning formation.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reordered the structure, again. See if this makes more sense. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Works In Progress
I'm currently working on the basic foundation and structure for the section "Severe Weather Influences". I'll inform everyone once finished, so revising and any additional information can be added before publishing to the main article. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference mess
We have 23 references which need to be filled out in a similar style to the others within the article. I recommend cite web, since a number of the references are already in this format. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll start reorganizing the reference sources. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't used cite web before, so it might take a bit longer that anticipated. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, references go after the period in a sentence, not before. I've been fixing some of these as I've found them.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Organization Question
Should Blizzards and SnowStorms be moved to a new section of Non-Tropical Storms, or should it remain under Precipitation? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could stick them under a heading "Winter weather". Ks0stm ( T • C ) 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreeable, or Winter Storm, since Blizzards and Snowstorms are associated with precipitation and powerful winds. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've merged the two sections into one called winter weather, but kept it under the precipitation subsection as both require the presence of snow, which is a form of precipitation. Only blizzards require winds to whip around snow enough to reduce visibility.  Snow storms do not need to have wind, just heavy snow.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The section that covers heat waves is disorganized and shouldn't be placed where it is now. I'm suggesting a new heading called "Extreme temperatures" be added to place heat waves and cold waves under. I just want some other opinons before doing so. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me...it's how it is subdivided in WP:METEO. Ks0stm ( T • C ) 19:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Where should Duststorms be placed within the structure of this article? Extratropical Cyclone? Or should a new section be added for this? Any comment would be accepted. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Extratropical cyclone could work if it was caused by a cold front, which some are. Others, like the haboob, are caused by outflow boundaries from thunderstorms.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Best portion of the French article that we should have in this one
From what little I have been able to gather (I don't speak French), the French GA article on the topic covers traditional severe weather types, and includes a nifty little graphic which appears to show helicity on one axis, and buoyancy/CAPE on another, and which of the traditional severe thunderstorm formations occur at various values. If this can be converted into English, or an English version could be found, it would be a great addition to this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

GA?
Does anyone think that this article could pass a good article nomination with its current version once it has had a copyedit? (I realized right after posting this the first time that it hasn't gotten copyedited yet.) Ks0stm ( T • C ) 19:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC) If not, what else needs to be done to improve the article to GA status? Should we ask for a peer review? Any and all input would be helpful. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T • C ) 19:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * A copyedit would be required and I guess a peer review would be okay to point out any mistakes and improvements we can make. But first I think we should finish the article by covering the rest of the weather phenomena, or aleast the important ones. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of those weather phenomena that needs to be covered by this article would be Downburst and Cold waves. Anything else on the Do-to list is not that essential to the article. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Now all it needs is a copyedit...I have put in a request at WP:GOCE's request page, but I don't know how long it will take them to get to my request. Ks0stm ( T • C ) 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we are going to have to wait until they do......meanwhile I'll try to finish up the things from the Do-To list as well as making some other minor adjustments to the article and perhaps add more information in places where needed. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article also needs to be fully referenced with an appropriate image placed within the lead. The references themselves need to be in a similar format with author, publisher info, date of publication.  This is not currently the case.  While the article is referenced well, it is not referenced well enough to be passed through GA.  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does all the images also have to have an ALT text? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the image. Should we put an image of developing thunderclouds in the introduction? Since most severe weather phenomena occur in the presence of thunderclouds or are related to it. What do you think? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As it is, we already have several pictures of cumulonimbus clouds in the article. Ks0stm (T•C) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I put in a picture of a mesoscale discussion. They are issued to outline severe weather threats (severe thunderstorms, heavy rainfall, or winter weather) in a given area, so it should be a suitable picture for the lead section. Ks0stm (T•C) 19:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, have we fully addressed the tags at the top of the article? I can tell you from what I could tell from the French article, we have not. If this article is US-centric, it will not pass GA as it will not have a NPOV (neutral point of view). Thegreatdr (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The French article, from what I could tell via Google translate, is about the forecasting of thunderstorms...and apart from a few snippets here and there, doesn't seem to mention any one place in general, whether it be France or the United States, so I'm thinking there's not much we can get out of it to make the en article less US-centric. And the severe weather we describe in the article can theoretically happen anywhere in the world. I added in the TORRO scale under winds, to make reference to Europe. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C) 02:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We also need a re-organization of the structure of the article. The proposed format and the current structure all have differential and similar flaws respectively. I think we can organize the main structure of the article as:
 * Cause
 * Categories
 * Types
 * Lightning
 * High winds
 * Downburst
 * Wildfires
 * Precipitation
 * Monsoon
 * Monsoon Diseases
 * Other Possible infection
 * Acid Rain
 * Local Severe weather phenomena
 * Duststorm
 * Mesoscale convective system (including thunderstorm development, tornado etc.)
 * Thunderstorm Development
 * Tropical Cyclone
 * Tornado and development (perhaps merge?)
 * Waterspout
 * Squall Line
 * Polar-lows
 * Lake-effect Snow
 * Non-tropical storms (including Extratropical cyclone along with its subsections and winter weather)
 * Extratropical Cyclone
 * European Windstorm
 * Nor'easter
 * Winter Weather (Which includes blizzard and snow storm)
 * Ice Storm
 * Hailstorm
 * Extreme temperatures
 * Heat waves
 * Cold waves

Mesoscale convective system and Non-tropical storm can remain under Systems related to phenomenon or just as a main section of its own. I suggest it should be constructed as a section of its own to avoid any problems with accessibility. Thoughts? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Perhaps a section called "Local severe weather phenomenon" can be added as well to include any specific severe weather phenomenon, for example, Duststorms. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be getting reorganized left, right, and center...perhaps we should do a RfC on the structure of the article, and see what the community thinks of it? <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C) 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the last proposed idea of Cause, Categories, Types, MCS, Non-tropical storms, and extreme temperatures for article order. It doesn't seem all that different from the current structure, actually.  Anyone oppose this?  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A section called Local Phenomena can be added too, perhaps to include Duststorms and other severe weather phenomenon that don't quite to anyother main sections. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The structure of the article has been re-organized. I also added a few references to the introduction of the article to verify and proof that the weather phenomena that we covered on this article can be consider severe. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see...we still require a copyedit, make a few finishes in coverage, perhaps a bit more reference and incitations in the Coldwaves section, fix the reference format issue, and get rid of the templates. Besides that, according to the Maual Of Style, we should also be adding alternative (ALT) text to images. That should be the next thing we need to focuse on. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Finished a draft about the terminology of severe weather phenomena, due the broadness of the topic. If anyone can take a look and proofread the text or add any other information before I published this, that would be great. Here is the link. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two concerns I have with it is the first paragraph sounding very "biology-strong" and the overuse of the word phenomenon. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C) 17:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed those issues. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I tweak it a little more? <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C) 20:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did some tinkering with it to make it a bit less choppy, and also tweaked a couple of facts, as well as did some proofreading of it. Take a look and tell me what you think. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C) 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...the section does flow a smoother with less repetitive terms. Thanks for the copyedit. I believe this is good enough to add to the main article, or is there any other information and contents you think should be added? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks fine for the article to me. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C) 21:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Organization proposal
Hi,

This article is nicely evolving but I think it needs a reorganization of the sections. For instance, although it is now for all sorts of weather phenomena, it begins by two sections about thunderstorms development and categories, followed by the types of severe weather, convective or not. I think that the article is mixing types, causes, and consequences from one section to another. I see the layout more like this :


 * Types : section introducing the criterias used in determing what is dangerous lightning, winds, precipitation, wildfires, acid rain, etc..
 * Systems associated with phenomenon
 * Convective
 * Thunderstorms development
 * Categories
 * Lightning
 * Downburst
 * Hailstorms
 * Squall line
 * Tornado and their development
 * Mesoscale convective systems
 * Lake-effect snow
 * Extratropical cyclones
 * Synoptic winds
 * Winter weather
 * Snow storms
 * Blizzard
 * Freezing rain
 * Ice storms
 * Examples of systems
 * Nor'easter
 * European windstorms
 * Polar low
 * Tropical cyclones
 * Monsoons
 * Extreme temperatures
 * Heat waves
 * Cold waves
 * Consequences
 * Monsoon diseases and other possible infections
 * etc...

Pierre cb (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You forgot Flash flooding. Also Micro/Macroburst should be added in the Downbust section. Bidgee (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good ideas, this layout is not restrictive. It was just a suggestion to show how I see the article to the contributors who have been working hard on it. I don't plan to make input myself. Pierre cb (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the proposed format somewhat confusing as well. Maybe we should eliminate the thunderstorm development section, and move the development of mesoscale convective systems into its place.  Another option would be changing thunderstorm development to organized thunderstorm development, since most severe weather due to thunderstorms is caused by longer-lived, organized thunderstorms, then making MCS a subheader of that section.  Good luck determining criteria for dangerous lightning, since it is all dangerous.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed there has been more reorganization. Let me know when you're done; this obviously can't be the final format of the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The current vision is perhaps the final format for this article before we can send it to Good article nomination. However, note that there might be more smaller changes to be made in the future, since the coverage of this article is not completly finished. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I admire the direction you were going with respect to the article's format, in trying to place all the threats under their respective parent systems, it doesn't work because the work is only partially done. We cannot have a "types" section if hail and tornadoes do not lie within it.  We either place all the threats for each system which contains severe weather within those systems as subsections, or we don't.  It doesn't make sense with MCS being the main header over thunderstorm...it should be the other way around.  And what do we do with thunderstorm?  Thunderstorms can form independently of extratropical cyclones, or form within them.  MCS's tend to form near extratropical cyclone's warm fronts.  MCS could lie as a subheader to extratropical cyclone, or even Intertropical Convergence Zone or monsoon trough (which is currently not within the article at all) because they form near it during the warm season.  Fires and drought would theoretically fall under the system of "Warm core ridge", which is not currently within the article.  We definitely need more feedback here.  It seems that no matter how we arrange the article, it ends up in an awkward state.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though when developing the current structure I wasn't organzing it based upon the threats and hazards presented in each phenomena, but rather the formation and development. Ks0stm proposed that we should do a Request For Comment to get more opinons. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think that's a great option. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would tend to support that seeing as I came up with the idea...however having participated in a total of 0 RfC's, I'm not entirely sure how to go about starting one... <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. Sounds like it's time for someone to learn.  =)  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I studied it yesterday. Though, it seens that getting the Wikiproject scope in which this article falls into is perhaps more suitable for the current condition of this discussion. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I kinda merged the two ideas, starting a request for comment then notifying everyone in the project about the RfC. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Severe weather's organization and structure
Brief summary: After much discussion and repeated reorganization of the article's contents, wider community input on the article's structure and organization is requested to determine a consensus. Background information can be found in the two sections above. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * * The biggest thing that doesn't make sense to me, is that the Cause and Categories sections talk exclusively about Thunderstorm development, while later in the article, something like Wildfires is under the 'Types' section. One could possibly jump to a conclusion that a Wildfire is caused by "atmospheric moisture, lift, and instability".  It would make more sense to me if the content of Cause & Categories were instead placed directly under a section on Thunderstorms.


 * * I also would suggesting getting rid of the "Local severe weather phenomenon" Header, because I think that probably most of the types of severe weather in this article could be considered local. i.e. - A cold wave is not going to occur in a tropical climate.  Monsoons are very localized, but obviously fit under a different heading. Maybe a new section could be created along the lines of "Non-precipitation phenomenon" or something, Duststorms, and possibly Wildfires could be group together with Heat and Cold Waves.


 * * That's about it, just my 2 cents. This is tough one.  WxGopher (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with gopher abive, but the article is certainly much improved from the article before. Should be a B class at least by now, not quite sure if it is a GA, due to the concerns above. I wuld praise also, the increased coverag of many more severe weather occurences. Prose is good, structure is ok, but a bit of reorganization needed, as pointed out above. Regards. <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Athe Weatherman   19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * * I looked over the article after being RfC canvassed. What immediately caught my attention were the sub-sub-sub-headers:  Monsoon diseases and Other possible infections.  I think some of their content could be merged into the sub-sub-header, Monsoons, and the rest removed from the article as its too much of a segway from the main article. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose to merge List of severe weather phenomena into this article without making this article too list-like. As for structure, I like the system proposed by Pierre cb above. It's a simple, logical order to sort this article, which has admittedly morphed into an index of severe weather phenomenon. Fixing that format is a longer term issue, but for now we should fix the structure.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article seems to be a redundant content fork of List of severe weather phenomena. One can see that it has the character of a list in that each significant type of severe weather has a separate article, e.g. Hurricane.  This article should therefore be merged into the list.  Also, it is not clear that the topic severe weather is well-defined.  For example, are Gales included - if not, why not?  And should we have articles such as Mild weather, Hot weather, Unsettled weather, etc.    Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead
I have shortened the lead sentence for a few reasons. (My edit summary said comically "wrong"... I meant to write comically long). Here is the sentence: "The term severe weather refers to dangerous meteorological or hydro-meteorological phenomena, of varying duration, with risk of causing major damage, serious social disruption and loss of human life, requiring measures for minimizing loss, mitigation and avoidance, and requiring detailed information about the phenomena (location, area or region affected, time, duration, intensity and evolution) to be distributed as soon as possible to the public and responsible authorities." This is probably a definition taken directly from the source (it should be quoted). We should avoid quotes, especially in the lead, and what's more, this sentence is a grammatical nightmare. The lead specifically had problems with WP:UMD.

If we need to have a 66 word sentence (479 characters), then it needs to be much further down in the article. Certainly not the lead. Shadowjams (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The future (or survival) of the heat wave and cold wave sections
We have a significant internal inconsistency in this article. The Glossary of Meteorology definition for severe weather, in reference 2, has not been tied into the heat wave and cold wave sections. While I can imagine that the cold wave section can be tied into extratropical cyclones, I don't see how heat wave can be since they have more to do with warm core ridges than extratropical/tropical cyclones or thunderstorms. We either need to find a reference which defines heat waves as a type of severe weather, or just consider it a form of "extreme weather", and place/leave it in that article. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit
This article still needs a copyedit. Anyone interested? <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 18:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)