Talk:Journal of Geophysical Research

Fair use rationale for Image:Jgrbcover.gif

Image:Jgrbcover.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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journal of Geophysical Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701061806/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/web_of_science/ to http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/web_of_science/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposing new articles for each of the 7 journals (October 2021)

Hello, I would like to propose that each of the seven subsections of Journal Geophysical Research merits its own Wikipedia page. The sections each have their own ISSN and impact factor, and are run as separate journals by AGU. According to the official website, JGR as it is described in this article was run as a single journal until 1977. Then, after Wiley took over, the sections really split off from one another. If anyone has an issue with creating separate pages for the section journals, please let me know. Thanks. Jturner20 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am not convinced and would like to know the opinion of other editors with experience with journal articles, such as Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• No real objection, but not really a support either. As long as everything is covered somewhere, I feel that's all that's needed. A central article works well for this, but distinct articles usually lets each journal section be covered at depth a bit more. So basically, I'm fine with either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong objection, but with so little material I don't see the point. I am the main contributor to this article, and I am pretty confident that there aren't many independent sources out there. So splitting this article would just get you a lot of stubs. If you can find sources, I would recommend expanding this article before deciding on a split. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Sounds good, thank you for the input Headbomb, Randykitty, and RockMagnetist.-- Jturner20 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)