Talk:Storm Prediction Center

Comment
Hey, I was wondering if anyone knew what the pink arrows on the Watches, Warnings, and Advisories map mean.Dr Denim 12:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The area west of the line has been removed form the watch. Error man 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ah...thanks...Dr Denim 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PUBLIC SEVERE WEATHER OUTLOOK section?
There should be a section added for this. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/pwo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.223.183 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To do

 * Reference 12 is dead.Jason Rees (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the offending statement and reference entirely; I never hear those terms used commonly. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Publishers and authors need putting in with dates of the work.Jason Rees (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ except for references 5, 7, 8, 10, and 13...all of which are weather bulletins and aren't really "published works"...would publisher in this instance be the Storm Prediction Center since they issued it, or the forecaster who issued it, or something else? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends on the situation but the way i do it is. author=forecasters name work=Department name (in this case the SPC) publisher=NOAA Jason Rees (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, ✅, but I put publiser as department and work as the product. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No abreviations in references, abreviations (eg NOAA) need spelling out.Jason Rees (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which references have publishers? I don't see any of them with publishers? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They should all have publishers but ive clarrifed my last comment.Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the lead should be an overview of the artice, i would take some of the history out of the lead and make a new section talking about the history of the SPC.Jason Rees (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That whitespace above the text examples, left of the pictures is really funky...on my screen, there's at least a 5" x 1.25" area of blank whitespace for each example. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed with . Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Automated peer review tool gives the following:

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. &lt;ref,
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] It's in the infobox. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) Already has one. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 20:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 INCHES, use 4 INCHES, which when you are editing the page, should look like: <tt>4&amp;nbsp;INCHES</tt>.[?]  Broken by the example products. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 20:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] &lt;/ref&gt;
 * The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Anything further anyone can think of? <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 20:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a section on the SPC's fire weather products? That is their other major purpose. Weatherstar4000 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments
I'm with the hurricane folks, and someone told me to come over here and review it, so here I am! :)


 * First, I think the lede could be better constructed. If I didn't know the article and I read the first sentence (paragraph, really), I would be lost very quickly. The first sentence is too technical, and while the information is valuable, it could be placed better. I suggest re-arranging the lede, perhaps putting the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph as the opening sentence.
 * ✅ Flip-flopped the first and last two paragraphs. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is "SELS", as introduced in the history section? Also, why was the agency created in the first place? Did the other agencies not have the capabilties of handling that? For that matter, more of the "why" would be nice in the history section, if that info is available.
 * , but this involves me having to find the time to read a couple books I got at the library, which is rather scarce at the moment. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also in the history section - "1986 brought two new products" - seems rather vernacular. Try rewording that.
 * ✅ <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The SPC was known as the National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC) and was located in Kansas City, Missouri until October 1995." - that's sort of a weird way to start a paragraph. You called it by its acronym earlier, so the reader knows the progression. Also, the way it is written makes it a bit of a run-on sentence.
 * ✅ Fixed the acronym thing and rephrased the first sentence of the paragraph. I think half the sentence was accidentally left out at some point. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any history post-2006? If not, maybe just sum it up at the end of the history section - "The SPC continues its operations in X."
 * ✅ Added something to that effect, also indicating that they remain in the National Weather Center building. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Categories section of the "Convective outlooks" section, you say
 * Many of the most prolific severe weather days were high risk days. This is quite rare; a high risk is typically issued only a few times each year. - hidden links like that aren't good. Perhaps try something like:
 * Many of the most prolific severe weather days were high risk days. Such days are unusual and are typically issued only a few times each year (see List of SPC High Risk days.
 * ✅ <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice two sections in "Issuance and usage" are unsourced.
 * ✅ References noted (and section expanded, at that!) <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Mesoscale discussions" section looks visually disorganized, due to the overlap of the image and the example.
 * For the life of me, I can't figure out how to fix this. At least 4 different configurations have been tried, but it really seems to depend on the monitor size whether or not they overlap. As it is, on my monitor, there's got to be at least 250 pixels of white space between the two. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Watches issued by the SPC are generally less than 20,000–50,000 square miles in area " - that should have a metric conversion.
 * ✅ <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 19:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The last section is missing a reference.
 * I went ahead and removed the comparison, because I don't recall that I found a comparison when reading my sources for the rest of the section. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Convective severe weather" is not a phrase commonly known in non-weather circles, so it'd be better if it were changed to something else in the first sentence. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Day 3 outlook table change
I notice that an IP merged the Day 2 and Day 3 probability tables per a service change announcement, but from my reading of the announcement the only change to those products was that now both have the general thunder line, not that any probabilities were changed. The page describing the probabilities does not appear to have been updated since the service change came into effect. Can anyone confirm that my analysis of this is correct? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Probability to categorical outlook conversions changes for 2017
It the probability to categorical outlook conversions have been changed for 2017. Day one outlooks have become more complicated with now taking significant severe probabilities into account. The article and tables shown on this page should be changed to reflect these changes. See http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/SPC_probotlk_info.html for the current versions. Stormchaser89 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

example for the meso-gramma mesoscale discussion being added in the near future?
this is lolkikmoddi im not logged in but could we put in a example for the meso gramma discussion thingys? like example, the long track tornado that was in Mississippi 3 years ago (2.25 mile wide one) where the discussion said "a violent tornado with winds of 170-205 mph is ongoing" or another example is the quad state supercell with 2 or 3 mesoscale discussions saying strong/violent. just a discussion cause i don't wanna get my ip banned for reverting back or being a butthole. 66.116.21.158 (talk) 66.116.21.158 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I need to try to find out of the one for Rolling Fork is technically a Meso-gamma discussion. I made a start class article for it (Storm Prediction Center mesoscale discussion 329) since they originally issued it for the wrong storm. If it is, that would cover as an example of one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I created a list of all 37 of them (List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions), but some editors do not think we need a list/examples of them, so both the meso—gamma 329 article and the list of all 37 of them were nominated for deletion. If either survive, we have an example or a see-also style thing to link to. Otherwise, the community consensus is no example should be on Wikipedia. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)