# Talk:Ocean dynamical thermostat

As I mentioned for another article as I have no artistic skills I have found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab very good at making diags to my requests 
Not sure something like this? https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/8/full-jcli-d-16-0454.1-f10.jpg
Chidgk1 (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: That would work for the climate change section I think? Perhaps we could get something directly from here but I am not up to do it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Afraid I am not up to doing anything more on this either - sorry Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ocean dynamical thermostat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


### Comments
I'm sorry to see that this carefully-constructed and well-written article has been languishing for so many months. There is very little wrong with it. 

I'm not at all sure that 'Other contexts' really belongs here; since we're using 'ODT' in Clement's sense, then the senses in 'Other contexts' are basically off-topic and belong in a disambiguation page, not here. I suppose they could go in a footnote.
Yeah, I wasn't that certain but since some people use it differently I think it fits. Perhaps "other uses of the term" would make a better section header? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't help really, as the issue is having a section at all. My pref. wd be to remove it or put it in a footnote. If this were a dictionary article, then listing the uses of the term would be our job, but since we're an encyclopedia, and we have just one subject per article, anything on any other topic is extraneous (outside scope of article) and lexicographic (outside scope of Wikipedia), if you take my meaning.
The use of bulleted lists is slightly debatable, though I can see that their use here, to describe a series of points of view briefly, makes good sense.
Yeah, I don't think that presenting competing viewpoints as paragraphs works when they aren't that long. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
We normally ask in technical articles that the scholars involved should be introduced with their full names and some sort of gloss ("the oceanographer" or whatever). Again, given that all the scholars will have similar allegiances in this case, it's probably hardly worth fixing.
My intent here was to refer to their papers, not necessarily to emphasize who the researcher was, for the record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
However, Heede, Fedorov and Burls 2020 is introduced slightly more fully (with "a study of") the second time, in 'Other contexts', than the first time in 'Projected future changes'.
Changed it to remove these words. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Note (a) should I believe be placed after the punctuation mark.
That's deliberate to emphasize that the note is an explanation of a word, not the citation for the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
A very minor stylistic point is that since the "atmospheric circulation" of 'Background' has a name, Walker circulation, we needn't be using parentheses there really. It could be worded simply "coupled to the Walker circulation of the atmosphere" or something of that sort.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
One thing that would really improve the article, but which lies on the edge of the GAN criteria (6. "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images"), is a map. A very simple labelled arrow on a world map would suffice to show the Equatorial Undercurrent/Cromwell Current (and could with benefit be placed in that article also). I'd even volunteer if you'd like that. Though perhaps you'd want a more complex diagram or series of diagrams to handle the interaction with El Niño.
That would be nice. The problem is that I don't know of any illustration of the effect, let alone any that isn't copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Well if you want me to draw it then feel free to give me a description of what you want drawn and I'll do it.
Outside the GAN criteria, it's surprising that Equatorial Pacific is red.
It's probably too generic to work as an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Then we might as well not redlink it really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


### Summary
Given the delay (and the time of year), and the very minor nature of these comments, I'd be inclined to pass the article immediately, but perhaps you'd care to take a quick look and give your view of the comments. An excellent piece of work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. I think we can proceed straight to GA; I'm happy to help with a map, just ping me as and when. Since GANs are queuing forever at the moment, everyone is invited to pick an article or two from the queue to review...  Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Specifically this paper. While I know about this "thermostat" mechanism, I don't think it's ever referred to as "ocean dynamical thermostat" nor that it has anything to do with this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, I really have to wonder what source there is for this addition. I mean, it might be correct but per WP:OR we need a source for that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)