Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am currently in the process of reviewing this article. I have made some minor improvements to style, spelling and other details as a part of the review.

Reviewer: ~AH1^(TCU) 02:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Reasonably well-written, good citations and overall prose, adequate introduction to topic.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lede section could use one or two inline citations

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A few references may be abstract-only

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article scope can still be expanded at this point

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is my first GA review, article is of good quality, but would benefit from some additional copy-editing and assessment of scope.

Thanks for the review. I replaced the image with questionable parentage within the lead, and for now, removed the vertical temperature profile images until suitable replacements can be found. This should satisfy your concerns. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Very well written and provides a well balanced view without deviating into a NPOV debate on Global Warming. One concern and the reason for a hold are the two images with the diurnal SST curves. The images are possibly OR provided by a research scientist. The measurement header and lead do not site sources to help support the images. With a little sourcing the images could be used without further issues in my opinion Inomyabcs (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be dealt with. I went through a couple images before finding one that was appropriate from a public domain source. See what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references for the measurement header have been taken care of. However, all the lines of the lead are already referenced in the main body of the article. Why would it need references? And why is this review not showing up within the SST talk page, anywhere, not even within the GA template? I keep having to go back to my talk page to find your link to it. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Recommend pass. Comments posted after GA approval but placed here to remove potential questions on whether there was still open items. Inomyabcs (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]