Wikipedia:Featured article review/Comet/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:49, 2 June 2009 [1].

Comet

Review commentary

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues, lede needs work, copyediting needed throughout, lots of skimpy subsections with only a few sentences, lots of bullet points that don't look that great. Article was a promotion under the old FA "refreshing brilliant prose" system. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Bryan Derksen, User talk:TUF-KAT, User talk:Kingturtle, User talk:Gentgeen, User talk:Stewartadcock, User talk:Robogun, User talk:Cimon Avaro, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System. Cirt (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'd cut File:W-preview.jpg; it's unnecessary to have a copyrighted image when there are free-use ones available. Also, I don't see where the author has given permission for its use.
The animation of the comet orbiting the sun (File:Comet tails.gif) should slow down when its away from the sun and speed up when near the sun, also the size of the tail should depend on the proximity to the star.
No sources for File:Comet wild 2.jpg or File:Comet borrelly.jpg (the uploader is banned).
For images that are generated by commercial software, like File:Comet 2006 VZ13 linear orbital element example.jpg, should we use {{non-free software screenshot}}? DrKiernan (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I went through the references and made them all nice and tidy. Some of them I removed and replaced with {{cn}} tags, as they were dead links or page no one could access. Some others did not support the sentences they were attached to, etc... Now we can work on reffing what needs to be reffed, style issues, etc... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a number of citation issues, for example the claim that comets are balls of tar is certainly astonishing to me. DrKiernan (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As dark as tar, not tar.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, prose, structure. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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