This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
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. Thegreatdr15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
