Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Definition of planet/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition of planet[edit]

After working on this article for years, I feel I have finally managed to remove all traces of POV and subjectivity, and I think it has reached its final, presentable state. Its topic is a relevant one, as its implications have recently been debated in the media since the discovery of the "tenth planet." Let me know what you think. Thanks. Serendipodous 19:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's very well-written. I would agree. --Sunfazer | Talk 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To start off, the lead section is much too short. It should summarize the entire article, not simply present the subject. For an article that size, the lead section should be at least 2-3 paragraphs with 3-4 sentences each. Also, the sources are not properly cited. See WP:CITET for the proper templates to use for each source. --BRIAN0918 21:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following minor problems should be cleared up:
    • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
    • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
    • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
    • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
    • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per above. Also, the tone is somewhat informal and there is some second person ("we") use. In discussing the chronology of the thought process, perhaps key dates can be made into non-TOC subheadings, e.g. ;1808 so-and-so happens; ;1828 so-and-so happens. Having to fish for dates in the text was a bit cumbersome. Otherwise, nicely written and an interesting read! - Emt147 Burninate! 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen dates being made into non-TOC subheadings in a single featured article before; articles generally are expected to remain in prose (not list) form. Thanks, AndyZ t 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Can you delink the trivial chronological items (decades, years without a date), as per WP policy?

It needs a copy-edit. Here are some random examples.

    • I noticed 'dividing line' (better as 'boundary') several times.
    • remove 'obviously'—if it's obvious, don't bother telling us.
    • "however, we can contrast bodies that are, allowing for topographic variation, generally ellipsoidal with irregular bodies whose limbs do not show smooth curvature, such as Neptune's moon Proteus." Who's "we"? (This occurs a number of times in the text—it's not an orally delivered paper.) Clumsy nested phrase. False comparison—insert "those of" before "Neptune's".
    • The table: please insert spaces either side of x (which is supposed to be a multiplication sign, not an ex—can you locate the code for it?). Insert a space before each occurrence of "kg" and "km".
    • "An object's density"—reword to avoid apostrophe in a formal register; however, I notice "Pluto's orbit" elsewhere, which seems OK to me (except that "were" should follow it, not "was").
    • I looked at one caption and didn't quite understand it: "The relative sizes of Earth (on the left) with (from top to bottom) the Moon, Pluto and its moon Charon, Sedna, Quaoar, and Ceres on the right."—Moon singular?

Tony 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yes, Pluto has only one moon: Charon. Haukur 12:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a good point. This article was written long before the discovery of Pluto's new moons. I edited the line to make Charon Pluto's largest satellite. Serendipodous 12:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've revised the article according to your recommendations. What do you think?Serendipodous 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good, interesting article. One point: superscripts (citation numbers) should follow one pattern, either before or after the punctuation mark (preferably after). In this article, both styles have been used. Please srick to one style. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, WP:FOOTNOTE says citations should follow punctuation. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done, after months of shuffling around. Lovely pic to finish off the page. Marskell 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think there is a need to rephrase the caption of Image:2006-16-a-full.jpg. How can we say that IAU "should" decide by September.... According to the section adjoining the image, a more appropriate adjective would be "will".
    • I'm afraid I have to disagree with that; given the IAU's past record on this issue it is quite likely that, even if they claim they will release a final definition in September, they will find some way to fudge it and postpone it should a split vote occur again.
This wonderful little anecdote by Mike Brown, the discoverer of "Xena", beatifully captures his confidence in their ability to come to a conclusion:
The official decision will come from the International Astronomical Union. We had hoped for a timely decision but we instead appear to be stuck in committee limbo. Here is the story, as best I can reconstruct it from the hints and rumors that I hear:
* A special committee of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) was charged with determining "what is a planet."
* Sometime around the end of 2005, this committee voted by a narrow margin for the "pluto and everything bigger" definition, or something close to it.
* The exectutive committee of the IAU then decided to ask the Division of Planetary Sciences (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society to make a reccomendation.
* The DPS asked their committee to look in to it.
* The DPS committee decided to form a special committee.
* Rumor has emerged that when the IAU general assembly meets in ::August in Prauge they willl make a decision on how to make a final decision!
So when do we expect a decision? Back in August 2005 I used to joke that the IAU was so slow they might take until 2006 before deciding. That was supposed to be a joke. Now I joke that I hope there is a decision by the time my daughter starts grade school and learns about planets in class. She is currently 9 months old.[1]Serendipodous 10:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great work, this is now probably the best reference on the web concerning this subject. Nick Mks 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything checks out. Looks good. Tobyk777 07:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, great article --K a s h Talk | email 10:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you all! This article has gone through a lot of changes over the last 18 months, but after the changes mandated by your comments it feels brand new. Serendipodous 19:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Definition_of_planet/archive1&oldid=1138458611"