Talk:Gulf Stream/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

This article no longer meets the GA criteria as the facts given are not verifiable. There are a number of "citation needed" tags that haven't been addressed and, as I pointed out on the talk page over a month ago, many of the references used don't support the facts, especially those given in "localised effects". Richerman (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will take another stab at defending this article. I can see, in a couple cases, why there would be issues. Give me an hour or two, which is likely all I'll need to resolve these issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence reference of the Discovery and Properties section references someone who doesn't make the connection that the warmer water west of Europe is caused by the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift. Normally in wikipedia, minority opinions can be mentioned within articles, but this guy's logic appears faulty. ~~For clarification sake, I propose we remove the last line.~~ I decided to add some meat to the minority opinion, just in case you still wanted it in there. Otherwise, all the reference issues have been taken care of. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit about an oceanic climate to that further clarify the sentence (I hope!) I'm happy with the rest of it now except for the bit about palm trees in Ireland as I think that's a bit of a myth too. I removed a reference about that earlier today as the picture showed Cordyline Australis which isn't a palm, although it looks like one, and is hardy in most of the UK as it will tolerate temps down to -10 celsius. I suspect those in the picture are the same species, however, the reference does support what you say so that's fair enough. Thanks for your hard work. Richerman (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I fix that before your edit? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes - it looks like you did - I must have been looking at the earlier version Richerman (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I come charging in to help, and Thegreatdr has already fixed everything! It appears to me as if all concerns with existing and non-existing refs have been addressed, well done. -Running On Brains 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]