This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WeatherWriter(talk | contribs) at 23:53, 30 June 2024(Starting list. Going to take a while to get it good, but the top part is good.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 23:53, 30 June 2024 by WeatherWriter(talk | contribs)(Starting list. Going to take a while to get it good, but the top part is good.)
The purpose of this page is to help improve the references in Wikipedia articles related to the weather and meteorology. It serves to inform users about a source's reliability as it pertains to meteorological topics. This list is merely a collection of some sources; other good sources do exist that are not listed here. You can help to expand this list by starting a discussion about a source on the talk page.
Legend
Legend
Generally reliable: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable for use on meteorological topics in most cases. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing.
Additional considerations: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It will likely be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate.
