Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Extrasolar planet/archive1

(Nominated by Latitude0116 01:08, May 6, 2006 UTC)

Object. The majority of the article is unsourced, and the references that are provided are in the form of embedded HTML links (criteria 2c). Article needs to have the embedded HTML links converted into full citations as per WP:CITE and sources need to be provided to the portions of the article that currently have no form of references. --Allen3 ^talk 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like a good find! - Malomeat 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sources are missing, more supporting images needed.--Jyril 08:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination became too soon. This article needs several improvements before it can gain even a Good Article status.--Jyril 18:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As per above. Lincher 15:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the formatting leads a little to be desired. No peer review nor inline citations. Much of the article in unsourced, e.g.: "The first method used to discover extra-solar planets was to observe anomalies in the regularity of pulses from a pulsar. This led to the 'discovery' of the first planet with the orbital period of one year. That was later retracted..." A source for the 'discovery' (by whom?) and its later retraction should be easy to find. Table of Extremes takes up a large proportion of the article. I would really like to see an FA on this topic, but this article needs some work before it gets there. --BillC 15:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]