Wikipedia:Featured article review/Comet Hale-Bopp/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 kept by User:Joelr31 18:55, 29 December 2008 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified USer:Noren, User:Serendipodous, WikiProjects Astronomy and Solar System. Marskell (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Worldtraveller's FAs are now far and away the largest group on the few/no citations list and they need to be gone through. The successful FAR of SL9 is what I'd like to shoot for, though help is needed. I've contacted a couple of astronomy editors.
Most obvious concern is referencing. I have formatted a couple of refs and dropped some dubious ones. Also concerned about some of the prose ("For almost everyone who saw it, Hale-Bopp was simply a beautiful and spectacular sight in the evening skies.") Finally, I would like some feedback on due weight wrt the Heaven's Gate and Art Bell stuff. Marskell (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demote: Tim, I don't think this article would pass muster at an FAC; Much of the information could probably be easily referenced, and there should be at least one ref per paragraph. The two [citation needed] tags are going to have to be addressed; they read like the apologetic writings of Ufologists. I've given the article a copyedit, but much more needs to be done. Serendipodous 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Serendip, that we wait a full two weeks before declaring keep or remove. There are no rapid demotions here. Even if it's just a copyedit, any improvement is good improvement. Marskell (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What a shame. Obviously it's not FA material, it'll be pretty tough to get it back up to FA status. —Ceran [speak] 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should be able to help with referencing, but my language skills are certainly not up to professional level. I am a bit short on time for the next couple weeks (damn deadlines...), but I'll nevertheless try to get things moving forward some time next week. Random astronomer (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove.Referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I have started adressing the issue with references. I'm still quite busy, but will hopefully make some progress within the next week. Random astronomer (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I'm still working on it, still making slow progress, still more to do. Please add more {{fact}}s if I have missed statements needing them. Random astronomer (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better. Nice work so far. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I'm still working on it, still making slow progress, still more to do. Please add more {{fact}}s if I have missed statements needing them. Random astronomer (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note No work has been done in a week. Random astonomer, do you intend on performing additional changes? Joelito (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than fixing those five remaining {{fact}}s I have no plans. If there are any additional concerns, I can try to sort them out, too. Random astronomer (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm finished. The claims that in my opinion need citation have one or two now. Random astronomer (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent work. Keep DrKiernan (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm finished. The claims that in my opinion need citation have one or two now. Random astronomer (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep: The referencing is much improved, and so is the tone. I'd lean towards Keep on that basis, but I'm concerned that it doesn't seem as comprehensive as I'd expect. I don't have many ideas for what else needs adding, though. A diagram of the orbit would be nice, e.g. like [2] or [3], and the implications of the abundance of argon for the comet's formation should be covered.[4] There seem to be several short paragraphs, too, which can be a bit jarring. -- Avenue (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I played around with gnuplot and managed to create a first version of the orbit diagram. I am a bit wrong person to make assessment on the comprehensiveness of article — I'm extragalactic guy and know little about comets — but glancing through some papers there does seem to be few missing topics that could be expanded. One of them is the origin of Hale-Bopp (solar nebula vs. pre-solar nebula vs. GMC), which is also connected to the detection of Argon. Then there is the composition, as the comet was quite dust-rich and the dust seems to be a bit atypical in some aspects. I will have to do quite a bit reading on these topics, though. The discussion of the orbit can also be expanded a bit; that should be straightforward. Random astronomer (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](http://www.eso.org/public/events/astro-evt/hale-bopp/images/comet-hale-bopp-orbit-aug01.gif){kind=link}
- Note Left open to address comprehensiveness concerns. Joelito (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The additions about noble gases, dust, and its previous visit have alleviated my concerns on this front. Thanks. -- Avenue (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of little MoS issues throughout, the usual for the astronomy articles where they don't have a convention for citing authors (pls choose last name first or first name first and make them consistent); MOS:ALLCAPS, WP:DASH, WP:ITALICS, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 7 December 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.