Talk:Climate system/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 10:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with a few observations regarding WP:WIAGA #2, #3 and #5:

There are still some unsourced paragraphs.

There are two paragraphs that are not directly 100% sourced. One of them needs fixing (counteracting the uptake by sedimentary rocks and other geological carbon dioxide sinks.), the other one is an introduction and just summarizations of the next paragraphs according to @NewsAndEventsGuy:. It was added a few days ago, and I will go over it to see whether it is indeed sourced below or whether it needs tweaking and/or extra sources. I'm trying to keep this article balanced (not too much about one aspect of the system), so might add some more stuff in the Flows of energy, water and elements section to 'compensate' for this addition. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One down. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Land use change" is unduly focused on human impacts; natural climate change can also happen that way as noted in African humid period for example.

I'm not aware of any external land use changes that are not human. As far as I can see, the examples under African humid period are all feedbacks. I have been staring at that paragraph for a bit because it's too short to read easily, so suggestions are welcome... I could expand on vegetation feedbacks under the next heading (response time and feedback). Would that work? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Land use" is a philosophic construct. It is a bit like when I started college, initially majoring in "forestry" and being very stunned by the implications of what the diploma would actually say.... "timber resources management". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is currently a merge discussion underway with climate change, so I wonder if the stability criteria are met.

The plan is that if we merge (instead of my proposal of renaming "climate change" to "climate change (general concept)") we don't really bring in new content or sentences. The parts of the article about climate change are already copied & pasted (& summarized & corrected & sourced provided) from climate change. I do not think this interferes with the stability criteria. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the criteria explicitly state merge proposals are okay. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Climate-system.jpg: Needs to state the license of the underlying images.

Done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I think I'll need to postpone further comments to tomorrow; the university homework and sleep deprivation have sent me crazy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, take your time and always prioritize real life :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make that another tomorrow; this week has been exhausting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, continuing on this:

1a: "Brakish" seems like a typo to me but otherwise this seems good.

Done. Thanks @Chidgk1: for making all my awkward sentences readible and correcting all these tiny words that I always typo.

1b: Good.
2a: Good.
2b: Good.
2c: AGFing on some sources I can't access, but for others: #4 does use 1% for all non-major atmospheric gases, not just argon. #7 does not say "liquid". #31 does only support the second sentence and #41 might have a similar problem. #42 also does not entirely support the text sourced to it. The second sentence cited to #56 is not supported by that source. #69 does not say what effect the aerosols have on snow.

As I've been using Google books for many of the references, I'm not always able to reaccess them. So I'll try to find a new reference for #4, maybe one that does the rounding (0.93 -> 1%) for me. #7: to me it was an obvious rewording of their text, but do you think they possible mean something else with hydrosphere proper? #31 Nice catch and done. I think it may have been supported by a later source and I put the sentence in between. Removed it as it was slightly off-topic. #41 and #42: should have added some tags when I added these sentences that they don't support everything yet. #56 Good catch: will correct it here and on climate change. (Done 12:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)) #69 Will find additional source. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done everything now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2d: Didn't notice any.
3: Seems like.
4: Seems like.
5: Seems like.
6: Seems like.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]