Talk:Geophysical Research Letters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not been assessed |
 |
Geophysical Research Letters is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. |
It hardly seem fair for poor old GRL to be dragged into the climate wars. It didn't become famous in 2005 - it was famous before. Indeed, M&M published a paper in it; but while that paper made some noise amongst the skeptics, the journal itself got little coverage. So lets have an article about GRL and not fight the climate wars by proxy over here. William M. Connolley 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC).
GRL has been around for over 30 years and has published thousands of papers. I've completely rewritten the article to better reflect GRL's mission and history Leuliett 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thats good, thanks. What else does one find to say about a journal? Its page charges policy :-)? Within climate science it has quite a high status, but because of the length restriction you often find people almost using it as a pre-print, with the expectation of a follow-up in JGR or something if the results stand up. William M. Connolley 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Grlcover.gif
Image:Grlcover.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
