 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Long lost article edit
Just found this article during a search for articles that redirect into surface weather analysis. Unless I hear otherwise, I am planning on deleting this article, since Weather fronts contains much more information on the topic. Thegreatdr 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think these articles should stay, but they need to be expanded, as they currently are copies (or even less) of what is in weather fronts. However, looking at de:Kaltfront and similar articles, it seems like there is considerably more that could be said (and, in pictures, illustrated) that could make these into fully fledged articles. Rigadoun (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Arctic Blast edit
Again, this article does not use a single word of "arctic blast," or even "arctic" and "blast" separately. Redirect does not help, and no article should require supplimentation by common sense. Please add something. I am guessing that a short sentence of definition is sufficient. For information on why this is important, please see discussion page on surface weather analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnu (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Undercutting edit
The text says "While this concept is used to generally describe frontal precipitation patterns, it is technically incorrect", and gives a reference. But the reference talks about overrunning, and warm fronts, so doesn't have anything to do with this. All the diagrams I've found of cold fronts show undercutting - can they all be wrong? 95.131.110.124 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm also confused and suspicious of the "technically incorrect" assertion. Given there is no supporting evidence, and its criticism is vague/imprecise, I reckon it should be removed. 2016-08-14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laos (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)