Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neptune

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:46, 14 March 2008.

Neptune[edit]

previous FAC
Check external links

User:RJHall has greatly improved this article since its last nomination and I think it is now ready for an FA. Serendipodous 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to article stats, RJHall is the main contributor; is this a co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. He's not around right now, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind. Serendipodous 15:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been contributing a few (mostly copyedit, formatting and talk) for the best month to this article. And I think it finally meets everything. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Upon doing extensive research on Neptune, this article gave me everything I needed in a clear, well-cited, and detailed manner. Excellent article, deserves featured status ASAP. Teh Rote (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only read up to the Naming part, but it's very well done. But a comment:
  • Though still a student at the Berlin Observatory, Heinrich d'Arrest suggested...

His name is rather random in my opinion; give a bit of intro for him. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support another great solar system achievment. And now all planets get featured status. igordebraga ≠ 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I believe the article is FA worthy, but I'm a little biased so I won't say "support". The one issue I had was an inability to access any issues of Icarus. So I wasn't able to dig up much information on core models or internal convection. Otherwise though, I think it is reasonably up to date and comprehensive. Thanks for your support and any corrections you may find.—RJH (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I don't mean to sound flippant - but this article is 'out of this world'! All the extrenal refs check out, the images are great. What's not to like? --Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flummoxed; the same issues have repeated in every recent planet FAC, when these items have been covered before. FAC is not Peer review, and these issues could be cleaned up pre-FAC. Is Voyager 2 italicized or is not? Publishers are missing on sources, endashes are incorrect in citations, there are MOSNUM and dash issues in the text, missing conversions, and incorrect use of bolding. You don't have to correct endashes manually; it's a simple matter of asking Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run a script. See WP:GTL, templates are incorrectly placed at the bottom of sections, they go at the top: For a timeline of discovery dates, see ... What is this: Because of the distance of Neptune from the Earth, the angular diameter of the planet only varies from 2.2–2.4″;[5][8] ... ? No consistency in citation formatting, no consistent biblio style. Please review recent planetary FACs and correct the recurring issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to clear things up in peer review, but peer reviews very seldom get any responses at all. Serendipodous 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, it would be nice if PR worked better, but it often doesn't work so well. At a minimum, we should take care of this stupid problem with formatting on space probes. Italicize them or not; blue link them or not. Let's decide on something. Marskell (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, believe it or not, I did have the citations looking pretty consistent at one point. =) However, a number of changes have been made since that time, so I went through and massaged the templates again. I'm not sure what you mean by inconsistent biblio style; all of the books use the same templates (down in the "Book references" section). I changed the >>″<< to arcseconds; I hope that clears up the angular diameter issue. (Otherwise I'm not sure I understand the problem.) I attempted to clean up the other issues.—RJH (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: An excellent article. The hard work shows. Deserves FA status. Meldshal42Comments and SuggestionsMy Contributions 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's there. Good content, good form, core article. NTK (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Saw a bit of a problem at one point in the Weather section
    • By contrast, Neptune exhibited notable weather phenomena during its 1989 Voyager 2 fly-by.
Might need a cite for that. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 07:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note 10 really should have approximate signs rather than equal signs (alternatively, put equal signs and the measurement error) Randomblue (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's only to two decimal places; I don't think we need to be that finicky. Serendipodous 14:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support -Ravedave (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, thank you, thank you for having a ref on the pronunciation, that's so rare to see.
    • Shouldn't it be "Neptune's trident" rather than "a stylized version of Poseidon's trident."? I know they are synonymous so you might as well use the namesake name.
    • "After reviewing the documents, some historians now suggest that Adams does not deserve equal credit with Le Verrier." - Why?
    • The Energy generation section could be better arranged (the 2nd paragraph should probably go 1st, but they probably need to be merged) It also contradicts itself - "the outermost part of its atmosphere, is at an anomalously high temperature" - "the upper regions of the atmosphere reaching a low temperature of 52 K. "
    • "In 2007 it was discovered that Neptune's south pole was about 10 °C warmer than the rest of Neptune which averages approximately −200 °C." - At which level? [1] That source seems to say the tropopause.
    • "Before the arrival at Neptune, it was hypothesised " - The arrival?
    • Orbit and rotation - "Neptune will return to its original heliocentric point of discovery on July 12, 2011,[60] when it will have completed the first full orbit since its discovery in 1846." - Isn't that saying the same thing twice?
    • That same fact is repeated in Observation
    • "the seasons last for four decades" Earth or Neptunian decades?
    • The rings aren't mentioned in the lead
    • Why does 'exploration' skip right to Voyager 2's last flyby, and not cover the earlier 1986 run?
Fixed your issues, except for your last comment. There was no "earlier 1986 run" at Neptune. You're thinking of Uranus. Serendipodous 11:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. However, I think the energy section still needs more work. The atmosphere goes Very hot, cold then hot again, right? Right now the paragraph describes in this order: Middle, bottom, extreme top. You'd think it would go from top to bottom. Don't expect the readers to know that the exosphere is outside of the troposhpere etc. I appreciate your efforts so far but that paragraph really needs a good re-arranging and some re-writing/ -Ravedave (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your main issue. If you still feel the atmosphere section needs expanding, let me know. Serendipodous 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Support)
    • Need a cite for Neptune's ring mention in the lead
    • You might want to explain how Neptune is the furthest planet instead of Pluto

Oops. ^

And that's all I found --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Serendipodous 13:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still: within the lead ...

Neptune has been visited by only one spacecraft, Voyager 2, which flew by the planet on August 25, 1989. ... Neptune has a faint and fragmented ring system, which may have been detected during the 1960s but was only indisputably confirmed by Voyager 2.

Is Voyager 2 italicized or not? See WP:ITALICS, ships are italicized, are spacecraft?
I just went through an italicised every instance of the term. I personally believe that Voyager 2 should be italicised, if for no other reason than it is italicised in its main article, and at the very least, Wikipedia itself should be consistent. Judging whether or not a craft should be italicised is difficult, because many sources follow a policy of not italicising anything, ships, spacecraft or even movie titles. I have, however, seen many instances of the names of spacecraft being italicised, so yes I think if it is Wikipedia's standard practice to italicise the names of ships and space shuttles, then spacecraft names should be italicised as well. Serendipodous 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an acceptable citation, Wiki is not a reliable source: 102. ^ See the respective articles for magnitude data. Missing publishers on citations, example: 89. ^ Boss, Alan P. (2002). Formation of gas and ice giant planets. Retrieved on March 5, 2008. Endashes and minus signs still not addressed; I fixed a few. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

brightorange just ran his en-dash bot, so I suppose it is fixed. I will check the sources a bit later today. Samuel Sol (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About ref 102, it is just a note since putting one ref for each object brigthness would be a little too clutered. So what do you think it is better, remove it altogether or making one ref for each? Samuel Sol (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it.—RJH (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About that, I think it would be better to go with the more concise one but supportive and go one for each. Unless that gets in the way...
  • Perhaps there should be a small mention on how Neptune was the second furthest before Pluto got kicked off the planet list? No? --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added one a while back. See here. Serendipodous 07:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely written, but you need a couple cites for the facts, such as the discovery of the Kuiper Belt relating to Pluto's questionable planet status. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please. How much longer? Serendipodous 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you pinged Ravedave and is his Oppose resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now. But (and here I ask merely for information) when someone makes a complaint about another article, and another person addresses it, is it not the first person's responsibility to follow up? If said person decides not to return to the discussion, the issue can't have meant that much to him/her in the first place. Serendipodous 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've asked someone to revisit, and they don't, just leave me a diff on the FAC so I'll know. (I'm pretty sure that is part of the WP:FAC instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the time in Minnesota?--GrahamColmTalk 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why?--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's 7:53. I just put the Kid to sleep. I will re-reivew right now. -Ravedave (talk) 00:53, 14 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Neptune&oldid=1138467682"