Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4 Vesta/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [1].

4 Vesta

[edit]

Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well-written and does a very good job of explaining the science of Vesta (plus, aesthetically I think it's well-formatted and just nice to look at and this just makes it more fun to read). --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 9 is lacking a publisher, and also it dead links for me.
  • Current ref 13 "evolution of Vesta" is lacking publisher and last access date
  • Current ref 14 is just a bald link. Needs to be formatted with a title, etc. but at the moment, it's a dead link (with tag on it saying so too, I might add)
  • Current ref 21 Greg Bryant "Sky & Telelscope ..." is lacking a publisher and other bibliographic data
  • Current ref 23 is lacking publisher, and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable site? Looks like a homepage.mac page to me.
  • See also sections usually go before the notes
  • http://www.rasnz.org.nz/MinorP/Vesta.htm deadlinked by the link checker tool
Sources look good. Other links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Prose/reference/layout issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

  • Short, stubby paragraphs/sections ruin the flow and readability.
  • The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
  • Lists should be converted to prose to improve readability/flow.
  • The pictures push the layout around (especially the last one, which obscures the 2 column references list.)
  • Orbital characteristics in the Infobox are not sourced.
  • No reference for "Vesta was discovered by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers on March 29, 1807."
  • No reference for "After the discovery of Vesta in 1807, no further asteroids were discovered for 38 years"
  • No reference for "Vesta is the only known intact asteroid that has been resurfaced in this manner. However, the presence of iron meteorites and achondritic meteorite classes without identified parent bodies indicates that there once were other differentiated planetesimals with igneous histories, which have since been shattered by impacts."
  • What makes http://homepage.mac.com/andjames/PageVesta000.htm reliable? It's a .Mac homepage (personal website).
  • Current ref 2 needs access date.
  • Current ref 5 needs access date.
  • Current ref 11 needs access date.
  • Current ref 13 needs publisher/author/access date information.
  • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This interesting article needs copy-editing. The prose if often non-encyclopedic, ("thanks to" for example,) and stubby. There's much to be done for it to be of FA standard. I concur with the advice given above by Wackymacs. GrahamColmTalk 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a lot of work to be done on this article, I think. Some basic things like the length of the introductory paragraph: the LEAD should summarize the important parts of the rest of the article. There is no way the four sentences currently in the lead of this article summarize the main points of this article. I note things like the Dawn mission sometimes appear in italics and sometimes do not. This needs to be standardized (one way or the other). This article is only about half the length of Featured Article 1 Ceres, leading me to believe that it's not comprehensive, although I realize comparing the two articles isn't an exact science. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How much time left to fix these issues? --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rough plan here is that nominees may have issues which take up to seven days to fix, or more if steady progress is noted. It is possible to recover from this point if you have alot of free time and some handy reference books or journals but may be a tough call. It is no drama if you withdraw now and a few astronomical folks help out for a few weeks to give it a good spit'n'boot polish and renominate then. There'd be some who'd help. Either way is cool. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I also agree the article needs some work. Happy to help, but needs comprehensiveness issues addressed before copyediting Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - simply not ready. For the wealth of information available on Vesta, this article is simply insufficient. A quick ADS search gives 1156 hits for Vesta [2] Google books give 671 books mentioning it [3]. Substantial expansion is needed before this can be considered featured. WilyD 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Comment: I'm a bit disappointed to see no one's taken the initiative to revise the article. Well, I'm the nominator so I guess the responsibility goes naturally to me. Give me until tomorrow afternoon (USA) to make some revisions. And yes, I agree with the above mentioned objections and they seem fair. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't come to FAC to get your article improved. Naturally that happens in the process if your article is not good enough. If you're seeking more editor help I suggest a peer review. Since the article needs serious expansion, this is something more suited to one with interest in the subject. Clearly, the people here (including me) are those who would do small edits such as minor copyediting. At the end of the day though, everyone has their own projects going on (and real life), so not everyone has the time. There are lists of copyeditors who can help you at both Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members, but I only recommend a copyedit once you're finished expanding - as WilyD explained there are a vast number of sources out there you can use. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/4_Vesta/archive1&oldid=1138453576"