This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia
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.
This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
[[El Niño-Southern Oscillation#Effects of ENSO's cool phase (La Niña)|La Niña]]
[[El Niño-Southern Oscillation#Effects of ENSO's warm phase (El Niño)|El Niño]]
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chidgk1, GA review was in 2011. There have been about 190 edits since then, so article has not been entirely neglected, but it could indeed be out of date. More concrete problem specifications would be needed to delist. Feel free to be specific about the suspected shortcomings, and also feel free to fix any easily fixable specific problems you may find. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't know the subject so cannot be specific about which of the 12 cites with warnings (they show yellow with User:Headbomb/unreliable.js) are actually not good enough - some or all may be OK. That is why I raised this for community reassessment rather than just deciding for myself with an individual reassessment. I don't want to spend time updating as incorporating info from the SROCC (for example https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/technical-summary/) would be a lot of work I suspect. But I am sure info from the SROCC should be added just due to the reputation of the IPCC. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood I have asked at the oceans project for more comments. I see you have taken a close look and made some changes - what do you think now - is the article still good? If not is anyone willing to fix it? (by the way there is a harv error on cite 3 - I don't like that harvard style cite myself - maybe we don't need that cite?) Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, The harvbn ref was fairly easy to fix with a google search and a bit of formatting, which is always better than simply discarding a reference because the format is poor or it is incomplete. I consider that reference to be adequately reliable for its purpose. I am not familiar with Headbombs script, but its documentation page warns users to examine the references personally and use their discretion, as they may or may not be acceptable depending on the details of the publication and what content they are used to support. Have you made any such checks? I do not have sufficient information to make a judgement call here.
Which of the GA criteria would you fail it on? A cursory examination suggests that it could be expanded and updated, with some more detail to clarify a few points, which by itself is desirable but not obligatory, as there is no indication of how much is missing or how important it is, and you have raised the issue of verifiability, but not made any claims about specific sources or the content they are intended to support. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 16:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a community reassessment not an individual one so it is not my sole decision. Unless others advised that they were bad I would NOT vote for failing it on the cites as they are shown yellow (warning that human judgement required) by the tool not red (unreliable source). However I would consider voting to fail it on "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" but I would need to take a closer look at the SROCC and might well be persuaded by more expert arguments from people such as yourself. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "Some of the sources show warnings for being preprints or general repositories." This is simply a reminder to make sure you're not citing crap. Here it highlights stuff with links to Google books. Google Books will have things from reputable publishers like Springer Science+Business Media, but also things like Alphascript and Lulu.com. If the books have reputable publishers (which they all seem to have), there's no real problem. See the 'General repository' and 'Google Books' examples in User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases for more information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to leave this community reassessment open in the hope that other people will comment. Also I see from the instructions that "Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion". Chidgk1 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no evidence that it is out of date to an extent that would justify delisting. Opinion not supported by evidence or logical argument carries no weight in Wikipedia discussions. As I consider myself marginally involved I will refrain from closing. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 18:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting - the article currently does not have sufficient information and recent data regarding the impacts of climate change on sea surface temperature (including linking it well with other related articles on this topic). This needs to be worked in at the very least before the article can be regarded as being a WP:GA.EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ocean surface temperature and land surface temperature have been increasing compared to the 1850-1900 average.[1]
I've just changed the image in the lead from a "climate change one" to a "natural science / georgraphy" one. The latter now shows how sea surface temperature is different for different parts of the oceans. The former (seen here on the right) contained too much other information in my opinion, e.g. it included the land surface temperature and also this statement above the graph: "oceans absorb over 90% of excess heat". This is too much jargon (absorb? excess heat? from when to when?) and thus digresses from the core purpose of the lead image: to show people with a visual image that they have come to the right page, the one that they were looking for. EMsmile (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It might be good to find a global map image for the current year, rater than for 2013. Or perhaps show side by side one for winter/summer, or one for this year versus 50 years ago (if we think the climate change aspect ought to be included in the lead image).
I agree that this style of graphic is very compelling. However, copyright issues are a major hurdle as far as I've seen. If something is entirely the work of the U.S. government, that's good news re copyright, so *.gov searches may be a fertile search area. —RCraig09 (talk)16:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uwappa: For free use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, there must be a specific Creative Commons license. ecmwf.int's permission does not fulfill that requirement. ~ sad face ~ —RCraig09 (talk)19:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The right to copy seems ok, the right to modify is probably the hurdle. Yet this hurdle seems taken at 2023_European_heat_waves containing File:Record_Temperatures_in_the_Mediterranean_Sea_in_July.jpg from the same source. Uwappa (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uwappa: Wowzerz, in all these years I had not known about the Template:Attribution-Copernicus permission that is acceptable in Wikimedia projects. I'm wondering if "This image contains data from a satellite..." is limiting in any way (if there are other charts from Copernicus that aren't covered). —RCraig09 (talk)12:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uwappa: That's actually like my question. The charts representing data back to the 1940s are definitely not "...data from a satellite..." that Wikimedia Commons' template describes, and ERA5 is part of ECMWF re-analysis, the "re-analysis" muddying the analysis further. One can go to the Commons Village pump/Copyright and hopefully get an opinion from a more knowledgeable person. —RCraig09 (talk)14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Uwappa! It's a very impressive (and scary!!) graphic. I think it's a good one for the lead. I've just made its caption more detailed (I think it's important to point out for where in the world this data was taken); also I have moved the other two images that were in the lead to further down below. I think it's best to have just one image in the lead. EMsmile (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Yes the graph is excellent, a true graphic gem, very well designed. Lots of credits to the designer at Copernicus, very well done. See chart title for location: 60 degrees south - 60 degrees north, the extra polar global oceans. So yes, scary as that is an enormous amount of energy stored in a lot of much water.
What strikes me is that temperatures are out of bandwidth for months in a row already with no end in sight. See BBC for how the warmer oceans alarm scientists:
Sippel, S., Kent, E.C., Meinshausen, N. et al. Early-twentieth-century cold bias in ocean surface temperature observations. Nature 635, 618–624 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08230-1
However, early records of global mean surface temperature are uncertain owing to changes in measurement technology and practice, partial documentation, and incomplete spatial coverage9. Here we show that existing estimates of ocean temperatures in the early twentieth century (1900–1930) are too cold, based on independent statistical reconstructions of the global mean surface temperature from either ocean or land data. The ocean-based reconstruction is on average about 0.26 °C colder than the land-based one, despite very high agreement in all other periods.2003:E5:2747:1200:585C:9A71:85D2:DFBA (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
