Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sea surface temperature/1

Sea surface temperature[edit]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: kept. Vague concerns that the article may be outdated are not sufficient to delist. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources show warnings for being preprints or general repositories. Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) is not mentioned. So I wonder if the article is out of date? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 There have been about 190 edits since then, so article has not been entirely neglected, but it could indeed be out of date.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.

What information from the SROCC do you think should be added? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I say I don't know the subject well enough to be able to make such a judgement about the cites. In https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/04_SROCC_TS_FINAL.pdf there are 10 occurrences of "sea surface temperature" so I am pretty sure something should be added. But I don't want to spend time on it myself. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

OK thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 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]

My opinion is delist as out of date. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 4 February 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.