Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Planetary habitability

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planetary habitability

[edit]

Self-nom. A good, comprehensive overview of a burgeoning topic. Suitable pics, nice mix of primary and secondary sources. It's been extensively gone over, including a peer review. Note on references: primary sources use the ref/note system while secondary sources simply link externally. The latter are reproduced at the bottom under a short description to provide a browsable list to those who might want to cherry-pick a ref section. Marskell 11:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Primary and secondary are split but use the same ref/note system (per below), listed alphabetically. Marskell 13:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please implement a single citation system so the numbered notes in text have a corresponding note. Also include a complete description of the secondary sources so there is a record of who wrote it and what it was so that if/when the item move there is a record of what was used.--nixie 11:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Note, it's impossible to have Ref 1 = Note 1 system, unless I want to have footnotes mixed with references! Marskell 13:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are still very confusing. It is not necessary to separate primary and secondary sources. On the footnotes, they don't seem like the would interupt the text terribly if they were merged into the article- alternatively use a different system to identify them, like the one used in Shrimp farm.--nixie 23:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The footnotes are asides--no need to talk about "Sagan, for instance, has argued..." in the body, unless the body is asking for it. How is Shrimp Farm less confusing? Or, more precisely, what is confusing now about this article's citations now? Marskell 23:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good... one last minor thing, is there anyway you could work the "See Also" links into the prose somewhere? It's not necessary but it would be nice.  ALKIVAR™ 19:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    please number your notes/references at the bottom.
    Can you clarify the licencing on Image:Habzonethinkquest.gif seems to claim no-commercial then GFDL in the same line. It is my understanding this is impossible.
    • 1) Done as noted below. 2) I edited the sentence on the pic so it seemed less contradictory. I specifically informed them about GFDL and they specifically agreed; I just thought it fair to point out they'd like it used for educational or non-profit. Marskell 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Objections struck; all have been addressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote numbering. One way or another, it needs to be possible to tell in a hardcopy what note or reference corresponds to which footnote indicator in the text. Perhaps the article would be better off using Harvard referencing for citations. Good enough now.
    • Numbers. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says "Very large numbers may be divided up by commas every three places, starting from the decimal separator in both directions. (Note that this is different from SI/ISO 31-0 notation where a thin space is used every three places.)" If for some reason this is totally unacceptable, and it needs to be a space separator, it needs to use   to prevent line breaking.
    • Need an   before the {{ref|x}}'s to prevent line wrapping.
    • I'm worried about the licensing on Image:BarnardsStarPlanet.jpg, which claims the copyright holder has released all rights. Where is that stated? http://members.fortunecity.com/wallpapers2/space/wallpaper.html says "for personal use only" and I couldn't find information there about who was the creator or copyright holder of the images.
    • A few one-sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph sections. They should be merged or expanded to give each paragraph a few sentences and each section a few paragraphs.
    • The last sentence in the lead, "This article is a discursive description of what conditions are presently considered essential in this regard and is not intended as a probability analysis of life emerging off of the planet Earth" strikes me as a little too self-referential; I hate seeing the phrase "This article" in an article. I could go either way on this one, though. I'm also not sure what the justification for not including information about probablity analyses of this sort in this article are; wouldn't brief coverage give more comprehensiveness to the topic?
    • (Comment only, not a full objection) I find much of the language more complicated than it needs to be. Example: "The HZ is a theoretical shell surrounding a star throughout which any planets present would have surficial liquid water." A simpler style of writing would make the article more accessible.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It needs to be possible to tell in a hardcopy what note or reference corresponds to which footnote indicator in the text." Then we need to change the programming to allow for footnotes to be seperate from references. If there is a way to have, in one section, 1, 4, 7 and in another section, 2, 5, 8, and in another section, 3, 6, 9, let me know. I haven't seen a way to do this--obviously footnotes can't be mixed with references. No, it's not necessary to seperate primary and secondary but there is absolutely nothing out of keeping in doing so and it makes sense here. The primary are the bedrock for the article, and the secondary are largely replacable.
        • I can only repeat that it needs to be done in a manner that lets you figure out which note or reference is being referred to, without clicking the link. Several different methods of accomplishing that have now been pointed out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't understand point about numbers. What is wrong?
        • Sorry I wasn't clear. Example: "This corresponds to temperatures of a little more than 7 000 K down to a little more than 4 000 K...", should be "This corresponds to temperatures of a little more than 7,000 K down to a little more than 4,000 K...". I'd have just made the change but I wanted to make sure you weren't going to feel I was stepping on your toes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • One sentence paragraphs have been eliminated.
      • The Barnard's Star pic is from a wallpaper site. If this is unacceptable I will remove it.
      • We don't go over probabilities because it's done to death. A note is provided on this point. Marskell 23:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Bunchofgrapes about the language being far to complicated. I've begun copyediting to make it read more like an article in an encyclopedia and less like one in a scientific journal. -Satori (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and does anyone have a comment on the actual content? Marskell 23:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I won't oppose, but here's a few thoughts:
  • As the article is about planetary habitability, I seem to remember there are various classification schemes on this. Some of them are probably from fiction and somesuch, but would still be relevant here. If not gone into in depth, they should at least be mentioned and linked to. I remembered one included 'M-class' for a planet that can support life. (See Memory Alpha). I don't know if there is a real classification scheme, but even some of the more famed fictional ones should be mentioned in a section (if they're not elsewhere on Wikipedia). Struck, but there needs to be some mention of this (if only a link to another article), as Marskell discussed on my talk page.
  • Saturn's Titan, meanwhile, has retained a thick atmosphere and has an outside chance of harbouring life. Why? Struck.
  • Finally, a larger planet is likely to have a concomitantly large iron core, Determining the habitability of red dwarf stars would help decide whether life in the universe is ubiquitous or vanishingly rare Plain English, please (putative, concomitantly, and grammar in the latter case). It's an encylopaedia, not a textbook! Struck.
  • Reword the paragraph that repeats the stock phrase 'there is reason to' not just once, but twice. Also too many 'however's. Struck.
  • Introduction needs to be a little longer (but not massively, just another paragraph). Struck.

There were a few other minor quibbles, but I'll just fix those myself. Like I said, no oppose vote, as I think the article is very good, but when the above are fixed, I will gladly All objections dealt with, so Support. Proto t c 11:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Proto. I'll get around to that business later today. To address previous concerns:
  • The Footnotes and References have been separated. References are now numbered. Primary and secondary remain apart but there should be no confusion now about which note refers to which link.
  • Dropped red dwarf pic per Bunchofgrapes concerns; replaced with GNU. Marskell 11:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the ESA Web Portal are intended for the personal and non-commercial use of its users. ESA grants permission to users to visit the site, and to download and copy information, images, documents and materials from the website for users' personal non-commercial use. ESA does not grant the right to resell or redistribute any information, documents, images or material from its website or to compile or create derivative works from material on its website. Use of material on the website is subject to the terms and conditions outlined below.
All material published on the ESA Web Portal is protected by copyright and owned or controlled by ESA or the party credited as the provider of the content, software or other material.
Users may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the content, software, material or services, in whole or in part, without obtaining prior written authorisation. In order to obtain authorisation to display or use any content of the ESA Web Portal, please make a request for authorization by clicking on 'Contact us'.

The image page doesn't have any source URL, image authorship information, or pointer to a release that would indicate that the image is GFDL. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I post the e-mail permission I recieved? Marskell 16:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the more information in the image description describing where the image came from, who created it, and why we believe it to be GFDL, the better. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very hard to beleive the ESA which has refused previous requests to allow images under the GFDL would simply allow you to reproduce it on wikipedia AS A GFDL IMAGE, they may just be giving a 1 site Wikipedia ONLY approval. Per the ESA Website: ESA does not grant the right to resell or redistribute any information, documents, images or material from its website or to compile or create derivative works from material on its website. This quote in particular is 100% against the ideal of both the CC license AND the GFDL license. I would definately have to see some sort of evidence that this meant MORE than just a Wikipedia only use.  ALKIVAR™ 02:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious support. This is a thoroughly researched article and it is good to see you have addressed the footnote ref concerns. It is important to resolve the ESA image issue, but overall this is a minor concern. Well done! Brisvegas 08:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re pics. First, just to be clear about HabZoneThinkQuest, there was explicit approval granted after I mentioned GFDL; see its talk where I have reproduced the e-mails. On the ESA pic, I have done the same with talk. I stated "once uploaded others would be able to use it elsewhere" and received "No problem with using the image" and a comment to the effect that ESA has allowed Wikipedia approval previously. There was no "only for wiki" caveat, but "used elsewhere" may not be interpreted as off-site so I have rm'ed the pic from the page for the time being. When I uploaded, I sent another e-mail specifically mentioning GFDL so I will await a more explicit reply. Marskell 09:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy regarding image permissions is currently wacky. We allow fair-use images - even when our rationalization for fair-use is Wikipedia-specific. We also allow - even as featured pictures - images which are under copyright in Europe as long as they're not in the US. But as soon as someone has explicit permission to use an image - and even if that permission extends to educational use in general - you can kiss it goodbye. ESA can't grant us permission to use images under GFDL, this has already been established. But they're perfectly willing to allow us to use their images. So, what you can do - under our wacky rules - is to write them again and ask them if they'd consider the use of the image in the article to be fair-use. They'll think the question is weird but it's one they can legally answer in the affirmative. Then you put that rationalization in the image description page and you're good to go. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The perfect article doesn't have any fair-use pictures; all its images are GFDL, Public Domain, or otherwise unrestricted-with-attribution. So, for Featured Articles, we try to aim for as few fair-use images as possible... even if we got fair-use "permission" for the image, I'd still object, as it is a non-essential image for this article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The perfect article on a recent book will have a fair-use image of the book-cover. We ought to stand up for fair-use, as Jimbo said a few months ago. Our fair-use claims depend partially on Wikipedia being an educational non-profit resource, the same issues as the use of this picture has. This is a picture which makes the article better and which will in no case land Wikipedia in any legal trouble. I will concede, though, that unlike most ESA images this one can be essentially recreated under a free license. That's the best option, then. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The perfect article on a recent book will have a fair-use image of the book-cover. No, the perfect article would talk the publisher into releasing a photo of the cover into the public domain. (I know that would never happen... but there's no such thing as the perfect article either.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you object to fair-use permission if that permission is explicit? Do we expect press releases? The image in question isn't essential, but it nicely breaks up the end of a longish article.
I'd also suggest the perfect article is something of a vanishing point. A very fine article which covers it's topic shouldn't be unduly faulted for having one of four images fair use. Marskell 16:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there's no such thing as the perfect article. And I support articles for FACs with fair-use images all the time. It's a question of how important the picture is and how difficult it would be to obtain a free image that conveys the same information. In this case, my judgement is that the image in question fails the tests.
It's more than just the legal questions too; for me, none of this is from a fear of being sued. It's about the idea of Wikipedia as a free (not free-as-in-beer, but free-as-in-speech) encyclopedia, reusable and extensible for any pupose in the world, no "educational" restrictions holding it back. A Featured Article "should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet." Our very best work doesn't have a fair-use picture stuck in just to "break up the end of a longish article". If it has a picture that makes the information in the article a little less free than Wikipedia strives for, then it needs a really solid reason to have it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take issue with the ideology. I agree with the ideology. Free reuse, whenever possible, is very important. What I'm annoyed at is the double standards. We have thousands of images that are only in the public domain in the US and are protected by copyright in Europe or elsewhere. This greatly limits the possible reuse of Wikipedia - you couldn't publish it in the UK, for example. I hardly hear anyone worrying about this. But when we are offered images that can be reused by any educational resource anywhere in the world we must, by an edict from Jimbo, say no. It's not that I think we should encourage such images - I think we should use free images whenever possible. But for images which we have no realistic chance of obtaining a free substitute for I think we should consider accepting an educational license. Just like we use fair-use images (again, under US-specific laws) when we have no other option. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you; those are good points, especially regarding the US-centricism of the image "rules", which is deeply unfortunate. Doesn't affect my thought on the image in question, though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we basically agree then. I'll stop the screeds :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We do, actually, retain the short cuts for tags that are desired but, [according to Jimbo], only as bait to catch no good images. It is understandable: wiki could survive a hypothetical free speech lawsuit, but copyright issues are often more didactic and could cause trouble. But I really have no understanding about how fair use has been accepted but apparently no attempt has been made (since the CC tags became a no-no) to come up with a clear "education-only" tag. Surely, this isn't legally impossible (?). Marskell 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The intro has now been expanded and the article self-reference moved to the first footnote. This answers one of Proto's points and one of Bunchofgrapes'. This is the last substantial demand put forward, near as I can tell. There's been some concern about overly technical language but the page has been copyedited by five-odd people the last few days, and the verbose verbiage has been pruned :). Marskell 16:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Up-to-date, methodical and engaging. It would be easy to stuff it full with gratuitous eye-candy astronomical images but diagrams are more informative. It does occur to me that maybe a recent Titan image would not be entirely gratuitous. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I missed the peer review. Why no mention of geological activity? What with the plate tectonics, internal heat engine, convective churning and such. I doubt geologically dead worlds (like pluto or the Earth's moon) can support life. Is the whole 'too much radiation preventing DNA formation' covered in the "Spectral class" section? A section of specific examples answering why Mars and Venus have no life would be interesting. Please see Kelvin for the correct notation (ie. no degrees). The "Geochemistry" section should probably go a little into what makes a nice cozy atmosphere, how planets get that atmosphere and why they don't lose it (ie. water stopping hydrogen from floating away). --maclean25 05:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of this is actually covered under Mass: Earth being large enough to retain an atmosphere and remain internally dynamic etc. Mars, it is noted, appears geologically dead. Too much radiation (and not enough) is mentioned in Spectral class and again under the Red Dwarf section. If there's anything that requires filling out please be bold--there's an enormous amount that can be discussed on the topic really (no mention, as you imply, about the Venus run--away greenhouse), but I'd been getting a little concerned the page was getting too far past 30k. Thx for the note on Kelvin. Marskell 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a layperson reader. Readable article on a topic that may be difficult to write in a manner readable by the average person. Ambi 23:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. A section on habitable planets in (science) fiction would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Planetary_habitability&oldid=1079798592"