Talk:IAU definition of planet/GA1

GA Review

Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The list in the lead should be converted to prose.

How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. I think it should mention something about the history of the debate and the different draft proposals.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:ThePlanetDefinition.svg, Image:ThePlanetDefinition3.png, and Image:ThePlanetDefinition2.png are too small to read. They need to be bigger if they are going to be useful.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ref #34 needs to be properly formatted using Template:cite web.

 Done Done, but is ref formatting a req for GAs? Nergaal (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now. I have more suggestions, but I'll wait for these to be completed first. You'll have seven days to make these initial improvements. Nikki311 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes look good. More suggestions coming soon. Nikki311 17:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Round 2

• "some astronomers stopped referring to Pluto as a planet" and "so was thought to be equally deserving of the status of 'planet'" - it needs to be made clear who thought this. Citations would help.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some full dates are wikilinked and some are not. The new MoS prefers for them to be unlinked. It doesn't matter to me either way, but it should be consistent throughout the article.

This is not a GA requirement. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Consistency is. Nikki311 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Quotes shorter than four lines should be incorporated into the prose, instead of standing out with a blockquote.

Ha? In which MOS is this? Or better said, who suggested this? Since if someone uses a small resolution those 4 lines could be 10... Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE. Look under block quotations. Nikki311 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am not sure what to do then. Are the quotes in the article ok now? Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• "There had been a concern that, in extreme cases where a double body had its secondary component in a highly eccentric orbit, there could have been a drift of the barycenter in and out of the primary body, leading to a shift in the classification of the secondary body between satellite and planet depending on where in its orbit the system was." - who had this concern? citation for the fact that anybody was concerned?

 Done

• "These descriptions were used partly to allow for some "common sense" judgement, but primarily to provide language that could readily be used in communicating the definitions to lay audiences." - Cite that this is why those descriptions were used?

I don't know how to find a ref for this. Also, I am not 100% sure that this definately needs a ref, but I think it is better not to simply delete the info. Nergaal (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like original research without a cite. There could be other reasons why such language was used or definitions not made explicit. Perhaps they wanted it to be vague, so that people could discuss the meanings and they could change over time? (that's a dumb example, but you get the idea). Maybe it can be reworded in a way so it doesn't sound so "cause and effect"...that might allow it to get away without a citation. Nikki311 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How about now? Nergaal (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• "but out of the over a thousand who attended the session only 424 members chose to vote or indicate their abstention on Resolution 6A (below)." - cite for stat?

 Done Nergaal (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a citation needed tag.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the external links may need to be trimmed out. See WP:EL for what an appropriate external link is. You can add what you remove to a further reading section.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nikki311 01:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the who parts, it is hard to say exactly; there were people on both sides of the barricade. Also, since there is none wiht a particularly huge authority, just giving some random names for people supporting one side or the other would not really help since it might lead to the belief that those people might have had more authority. Nergaal (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If nobody particularly noteworthy had an opinion on the matter, that's okay, but you still need to cite the fact that someone felt that way. Nikki311 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I already did that. Nergaal (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

I didn't see where you changed the quotes, so I did that myself. I also wikilinked the one date that needed to be. The only thing left is the sentence ("These descriptions were used partly to allow for some "common sense" judgement, but primarily to provide language that could readily be used in communicating the definitions to lay audiences."). I saw your change, but now it reads like speculation, which is also no good. The best bet, IMO, is to hide the sentence with <!-- --> until a good source can be found. I don't think the article loses anything too major with out that particular bit of info. Nikki311 21:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah...don't feel like you have to reply on my talk page. I have this page on my watchlist, so I'll see when you've replied here. Nikki311 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I left out the common sense sentence. As for the quotes, I agree with them except with those that are 'official'. I think that the official text should stand out, and through the same format, since this article is about that exact text. I think the MOS is less important in those 2 quotes in this specific article. Also, it is consistent this way. Nergaal (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I don't mind if you separate the official text out. I'm going to go ahead and pass the article, though. Nikki311 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)