Wikipedia:Featured article review/Planetary nebula/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:58, 25 November 2009 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: User talk:Worldtraveller most edits and nominator and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics
I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations - criterion 1c. Tom B (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to add inline citations. Ruslik_Zero 09:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added alt text, although I suggest my text be reviewed and improved by others. WilliamKF (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that looks good. For next time it doesn't have to be quite that fancy; please see WP:ALT#Brevity. I tweaked the lead image alt text as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Eubulides (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think I added all necessary citations. The article can kept now. Ruslik_Zero 14:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good job well done, images check out well and sources look high quality. Disambiguation done, overlinking removed. All links check out okay. Tom B (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes needed and questions:
- Per WP:MSH, why is Clusters uppercase in "Membership in Clusters"?
- The article needs a MOS review; I've left brief sample edits, enough to realize that no one has yet reviewed for MOS.
- Does the citation at the end of this paragraph cover all of the vagueries in the para?
- There are two different ways of determining metal abundances in nebulae, which rely on different types of spectral lines, and large discrepancies are sometimes seen between the results derived from the two methods. Some astronomers put this down to the presence of small temperature fluctuations within planetary nebulae; others claim that the discrepancies are too large to be explained by temperature effects, and hypothesize the existence of cold knots containing very little hydrogen to explain the observations. However, no such knots have yet been observed.[39]
- Yes, it covers everything. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not thrilled with the "See also" section; has it been reviewed for compliance with WP:LAYOUT?
Other than those, and only based on a quick flyover, I don't see big issues here, so probably won't return to this review, leaving it to others to check these items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I started making a few edits, including removing an unnecessary 'credits' line from the lead image caption—but am flummoxed to see that all image captions in the article include credits. Not sure what is going on here. Maralia (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Did some copy editing to make some prose more clear and readable. I'm not a fan of one paragraph sections but that is a nitpick. This article's FA star still shines (pun intended). --mav (talk) 03:31, 19 November 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.