Talk:Degree day

The section that was deleted was not original research - it was a routine calculation involving official data from the US Government (link included) and an explanation of how it actually works. Without exception everybody who read the update agreed that my contribution made the entry actually useful and informative. The last paragraph could be viewed as an analysis and conclusion even though it is truly an explanation of the routine calculation but I deleted it to keep the peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsskier (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I can see a point that it wasn't that clearly "original research". However, the section had a very inappropriate "chatty" tone and reads something like an essay rather than an encyclopedia entry, so it definitely ran against WP:NOTHOWTO. So I find the deletion justified. Tomas e (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Agree with Tomas that the tone was totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry and more like an instruction "WP:HOWTO" manual. While there is one inappropriately embedded external link (see WP:EL and WP:CITE), the majority of the text had no reliable source citation and came across as an WP:ESSAY with distinct WP:OR flavor. While I can see the benefit in retaining some of the content, it simply must be rewritten to a passive, neutral third person tone more appropriate for an encyclopedia and needs to be properly referenced to cited reliable sources. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 15:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

I've read over the article a couple of times. As a layman, I'm still pretty much baffled by what a degree day is. A simple example, using actual numbers, would be most illustrative.

(I came here by way of the Limerick Dictionary which also offers an explanation, but I'm afraid I'm too dense even for that.)

Heavy Joke (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I find this article pretty much useless, especially since there are much better articles on all the subjects that it covers or references. In particular, the contrast between this article's level of quality and that if the "Heating degree day" especially inclines me to this view.

Poihths (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Degree day. 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/20080714224406/http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/degreedays.php to http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/degreedays.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC) [reply ]