Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halley's Comet/archive1

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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [1].

---

Halley's Comet

Nominator(s): Serendi^podous 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC) User:Kheider, User:Saros136, User:Masursky, User:Ruslik0

• Featured article candidates/Halley's Comet/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because it has completed peer review, and is I think ready for consideration. Serendi^podous 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Ref number 1 is borked somehow... also 81
• Please spell out abbreviations in the refs. I noted ESO and OAA but there may be others.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://cometography.com/pcomets/001p.html
  • http://www.josephus.org/starOfBethlehem.htm (lacks a publisher also)
  • http://www.astronautix.com/craft/columbia.htm
  • http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/0001P/index.html (lacks a publisher also)
• Current ref 42 (TN Woods..) lacks a publisher
• Current ref 65 (Ian Ridpath..) lacks a publisher
• Current ref 82 ... "S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky,(1958), Physical Characteristics of Comets" is this a book? journal article? Needs more bibliographical information to satisfy WP:V

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gary W. Kronk is a science writer whose work has been favorably reviewed in science journals. I think he can be considered a reliable source. Other issues solved. Serendi^podous 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what did you replace the non-Kronk refs with? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In order: [2], [3], [4], [5] (3 for 1) and [6] (the source the source used). I removed Vsekhsvyatsky. Serendi^podous 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• "in the realm of 300–400 K (27–127 °C)."
  • That conversion result has far too much precision for an "in the realm of" number; even 30 to 130 °C would overstate it, but that's probably as good as we can reasonably expect
  • Don't use hyphens to indicate a range when some of the numbers might be negative. It is far too confusing. Use "to" when you have things like degrees Celsius.
• add spaces between numbers and unit symbols. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

done I think. Serendi^podous 02:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support and a few comments:
  • official designation by whom? IAU?
  • I would prefer having "Apparitions" right after the computation section since both of them refer to the comet's historic observations.
  • try to find a better name than "Designation" (it should probably be pluralized anyways); also, did you consider merging that table into the previous section? Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As to your last point, it was originally merged together, but the result was tagged in peer review for being too listy. Serendi^podous 18:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I'll make straightforward copyedits (please revert if I change the meaning accidentally), and place queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comet Halley - hmm, I've never heard it called thus...?

most famous - sounds like a film star.. "best-known"?

The above points are minor quibbles. I made some minor tweaks but am happy with how it stands. Some paragraphs are a little small but hard to combine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, "Comet Halley" is actually the name astronomers prefer. Modern astronomical parlance places the name second, as in Comet Hyakutake or Comet Hale-Bopp. But Halley's Comet was named before the practice became standard. Serendi^podous 02:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support—It looks to be FA worthy.

Comment—Looks good so far, but I think it still needs a little work:

• The lead doesn't seem to summarize parts of the article, particularly the structure and composition section.
• The first paragraph of the "Computation of orbit" section consists of one short and one very long sentence. That makes it a little awkward to read aloud, for example. Please consider splitting into 2–3 palatable sentences.
• What does '28.6' mean for an apparent magnitude? It seems phenomenally low. Is that the current value? As of what date?
• The article contains "Halley-type comets" and "Halley type comets". Please be consistent.
• "Changes in the flow of the solar wind can cause disconnection events; or the tail completely breaking off from the nucleus." The 'or' here is ambiguous, since it makes the sentence seem like it may be discussing two different phenomenon. Is that intended? Perhaps "..., where the tail..."?
• "...the vast size..." is vague. Please give some sample values.
• The citations need work:
  • There are inconsistent author naming schemes. For example, "G. Cevolani, G. Bortolotti and A. Hajduk", "RZ Sagdeev; PE Elyasberg; VI Moroz", "S. J. Peale; Jack J. Lissauer", and "Gladman, B.; Kavelaars, J.; Petit, J.-M.; Ashby, M. L. N.; Parker, J.; Coffey, J.; Jones, R. L.; Rousselot, P." Please pick one scheme and stick with it.
    • Still inconsistent.—RJH(talk)
  • Is there a URL for "In Situ Observations of Cometary Nuclei"?
  • Are there ISBNs for "A Jewish Understanding of the World", "Cometography" and "Records of Halley's Comet on Babylonian tablets"? If not, perhaps add some additional publication info.
    • The format of the book citations is inconsistent. Compare, for example, Halley & His Comet to the Cometography citations. Does one use the citation template and the other not? Any cite with an ISBN should look pretty similar. Also the Comet Lore ref. lacks location information.—RJH (talk)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I think. Serendi^podous 17:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost.—RJH (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Is that what you wanted? Serendi^podous 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the remainder. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments—I have a minor "thing" for outer space—thanks partly to book clubs and shoot 'em ups—so I looked a bit more closely at the prose, minus most of "Structure and composition" and "Apparitions".

• No dab links or dead external links—very nice.
• Alt text looks ok, since Halley is described in the text, but mixes "Comet Halley" and "Halley's Comet" (which'll it be!?). The "orbits of three periodic comets" image should get larger text—its thumbnail does not show the labels well.
• Dates appear to be Month Day, Year in text andISO style in refs. I see a few Month Day, Year ref dates that should be changed for consistency. Update, 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC): There's a mix of "Day Month Year" without comma, "Month Day, Year", and now "Day Month, Year" with comma—again, use one for prose and one (same or different) for refs.

OK. Is that it? Serendi^podous 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Both prose and ref dates are consistent now, and anyone who doesn't like "Day Month, Year" with the comma can easily replace it with the no-comma style. Good job. --an odd name 03:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• When did Halley's Comet get that name, anyway? Can you verify this part from the Edmond Halley article? (common knowledge?)

  "In 1705, applying historical astronomy methods, he published Synopsis Astronomia Cometicae, which stated his belief that the comet sightings of 1456, 1531, 1607, and 1682 related to the same comet, which he predicted would return in 1758. Halley did not live to witness the comet's return, but when it did, the comet became generally known as Halley's Comet."

• Why "rhyming with valley" twice in "Pronunciation"? (Are you concerned that the IPA text won't show up?)
• "Halley is classified as a periodic or short-period comet; a descriptor for comets with orbits lasting 200 years or less."—maybe "Halley is classified as a periodic or short-period comet, one with an orbit lasting 200 years or less."
• "Its closest distance to the Sun called perihelion"—I didn't know distances had cellphones! Maybe "Its closest distance to the Sun (perihelion) "? (There are already a lot of commas and parens in the sentence—should it be split? I'd like a third opinion.)
• "that has its inner edge of 20,000–50,000 AU."—change "its" to "an"?
• "Because its orbit comes close to Earth's in two places ..."—try expanding this sentence so that it doesn't look like a widow. If you can cleanly combine it with a prior paragraph, that'll work as well.
• The "peanut" part should clarify that it's an unshelled nut, not the peanut shell.
• "Two Space Shuttle missions—the ill-fated STS-51-L (the Challenger disaster)"—perhaps "... (ended by the Challenger disaster)"?
• (added on 03:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)) "The media, despite the pleas of astronomers, wove sensational tales of mass cyanide poisoning engulfing the planet."—is this really neutral? The NYT article that gave Camille Flammarion's opinion says "Most astronomers do not agree with Flammarion" wrt whether the tail would even hit Earth, let alone that the cyanogen would reach people unchanged. The first two paragraphs and title are more concerning, but the tail was (or is) poisonous to some degree (until hitting the atmo). I'm not convinced this was media sensationalism (given just refs 65 and 66) so much as reader overreaction. Anyone else have thoughts?

Neutralised a bit. Serendi^podous 13:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A very famous comet that needs a great article. At a glance, it doesn't look bad. --an odd name 04:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly when Halley's Comet became Halley's Comet. I could try to look it up, but I'm not sure I'd find anything. I'm not sure what you mean by "should get larger text". I wasn't concerned that IPA wouldn't show up, but that people's eyes would glaze over the IPA. Serendi^podous 11:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not sure what you mean by 'should get larger text'."—The text in the image itself (File:Orbits of periodic comets.svg) should be enlarged so that it shows up as more than just fuzzy lines in the 300px thumbnail. You can also make the thumbnail 400px, but it still won't be readable, and anything bigger would probably be too wide unless you use a panorama or such. (I'm not talking about making its alt or caption text bigger; those look ok.) --an odd name 11:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I know you asked the uploader about File:Halleys comet.jpg being an own work or not, but he has not responded (and I do not think he will). This image needs to be removed from the article until a response is given or a replacement is found. The rest of the images look fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The guy updated the same day an image from the British Museum. It might be that he took both of them at the same time? Nergaal (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Orbits of periodic comets.svg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. For self-made images, this would be an explicit assertion of authorship. Source for the orbital information should also be provided.

    Contacted the author Serendi^podous 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    I referenced JPL's orbital simulation... -- Kheider (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    I subbed another image. Does it meet the criteria or not? Serendi^podous 10:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Halley Giotto.jpg - NFCC#10C requires a "specific" rationale and WP:FURG, incorporated therein by reference, requires a "detailed" rationale. "To illustrate the nucleus of Halley's Comet, an important aspect of the article's subject" is not a rationale, but a function. What significant contribution to the reader's understanding is the image intended to make?

    Done. Serendi^podous 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Tapestry of bayeux10.jpg - The Tapestry of Bayeux is not a publication (the photo thereof is a derivative). The license should be one based solely on a p.m.a. duration, not publication.

    I don't know what this means. Serendi^podous 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    I also do not agree. The photo is a faithfuls reproduction of a 2D art work and lacks any originality itself, therefore no copyright subsists in this photo. The only copyright that has ever existed is the copyright of the original work, which, however, expired long ago. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Don't agree with what? Nowhere have I said there is a copyright in the photo or the tapestry. Please read critically; this is an issue regarding the choice of license template. Unpublished works (the tapestry) have terms based on life of the author (p.m.a.), not publication. It's a non sequitur to have a publication-based license. Эlcobbola _talk 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Can you please direct me to the proper template, so that I can upload it? Serendi^podous 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    As I've said, "The license should be one based solely on a p.m.a. duration" and "It's a non sequitur to have a publication-based license". It already has a correct license; the issue is that it has a second, inappropriate license. Just remove the publication-based license. Эlcobbola _talk 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    You said "derivative (work)", which means that you assumed that the image has some originality. Since there is no originality, it is not a derivative work—it is just a slavish copy. In addition, a reproduction of the tapestry was published in 1856, therefore both templates are applicable. Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    A derivative work is a defined term and has nothing to do with originality. I mentioned it because I assumed whoever applied the bonus publication license may have meant that license to apply to the photo. Publication would have to have occurred with consent of the copyright holder to be genuine; the creator of the tapestry did not publish it in 1856. This is not difficult. Эlcobbola _talk 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Serendi^podous 20:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Giotto - Scrovegni - -18- - Adoration of the Magi.jpg - Needs a verifable source.

    Well, the guy who uploaded it hasn't edited since 2007, so if you feel that bad about it, delete it. Serendi^podous 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Remedies are to remove the image from the article or locate a source. Эlcobbola _talk 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    There's no way to locate the source, because the guy who uploaded it doesn't edit anymore. My point is that it's not just in this article, so if you want me to delete it from this one it should be deleted from all of them. Serendi^podous 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Other articles are not at FAC. This article needs to satisfy WP:WIAFA and WP:IUP. It currently does not. Эlcobbola _talk 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Serendi^podous 20:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    It is not very difficult to find actually (or this). Ruslik_Zero 10:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Halley's Comet, 1910.JPG - Source indicates date of creation only. When was it published? How can the pre-1.1.1923 publication license be substantiated?

    Done. Serendi^podous 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Comet Halley.jpg - Does not seem to attribute the correct author (Kuiper Airborne Observatory, C141 aircraft April 8/9, 1986, New Zealand Expedition, per the description and source). Эlcobbola _talk 16:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Serendi^podous 16:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: File:AnimatedOrbitOf1PHalley.gif should have a source for the orbital information. Эlcobbola _talk 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. I actually do not know whether I can support or not, because I contributed some material to the article and copy-edited it, but the text looks good now. Ruslik_Zero 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: please review for WP:OVERLINKing, and there are several instances of telling the reader to "see above" or "see below". This should be avoided if possible (indicates problems in organiational structure of article), but if it must be done, at least say "where". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed one, as it wasn't necessary. I added an internal link to the other, but I don't think I can combine it. Serendi^podous 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Overlinks removed. Serendi^podous 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.