Wikipedia:Featured article review/Solar System/archive2
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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Nsae Comp, Ruslik0, Kwamikagami, JorisvS, Rfassbind, Ashill, Double sharp, Serendipodous, WP Systems, WP Astronomical objects, WP Solar System, talk page notification 2022-02-22
I am nominating this featured article for review because I have found a few "non-perfections" at the article, I talked about it at the talk page but got no replies and its been more than 10 days. Since I am not an astronomer and I am quite unfamiliar with these kind of topics, I can not fix them myself, so I ask the community to review the article (which overall, I found pretty good tbh) Cinadon36 08:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, you are supposed to wait at least 2 weeks for someone to respond. This article is listed on WP:URFA/2020A (kept at FAR in 2009) but has not been examined yet. There is considerable unsourced content. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifications have not been done either. It may be best to put this one on hold for a couple weeks to see if someone will work on it with an eye towards keeping the star. Hog Farm Talk 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Cinadon36 actually began discussing the deficiencies on talk on 22 February, so we may as well let this one run even though Cinadon36 did not follow the instructions and has not done the notifications. Cinadon36, I added the talk page issues to the Notifications section above. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR so you can avoid making this mistake again. Also, after you read the instructions, please do the notifications as indicated, and record them above. You can see a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. Also, we try to avoid overwhelming any one WikiProject with more than one FAR at a time, so with Mars already up, it is unlikely that anyone will work on Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry mates, I will try to notify users. I didnt do it immediately coz it seems everything is going so slowly in the specific article, and I thought I could do it later. This is my first FAR, and I wouldnt know how to notify, so, I thought I will think of it later. I 'll do it now and if I have any questions, I will ask someone of you at your talkpages maybe? Thanks and pls bare with me! Cinadon36 15:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cinadon36; your notifications are looking good, the remaining step is to list them above, using the format at Mars. No harm done here, as it does not appear that the Astronomy WikiProject has the people power or the interest in keeping their articles at standard anymore; a very sad loss for Wikipedia, as we had most of the Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Cinadon36, I completed the notification listings for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry mates, I will try to notify users. I didnt do it immediately coz it seems everything is going so slowly in the specific article, and I thought I could do it later. This is my first FAR, and I wouldnt know how to notify, so, I thought I will think of it later. I 'll do it now and if I have any questions, I will ask someone of you at your talkpages maybe? Thanks and pls bare with me! Cinadon36 15:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Cinadon36 actually began discussing the deficiencies on talk on 22 February, so we may as well let this one run even though Cinadon36 did not follow the instructions and has not done the notifications. Cinadon36, I added the talk page issues to the Notifications section above. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR so you can avoid making this mistake again. Also, after you read the instructions, please do the notifications as indicated, and record them above. You can see a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. Also, we try to avoid overwhelming any one WikiProject with more than one FAR at a time, so with Mars already up, it is unlikely that anyone will work on Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifications have not been done either. It may be best to put this one on hold for a couple weeks to see if someone will work on it with an eye towards keeping the star. Hog Farm Talk 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm spread thin these days, but I took a first whack at addressing the issues raised on the Talk page, and I trimmed a little. My impression right now is that the uncited material can probably either be cited to standard textbooks (or possibly journal articles), or removed as WP:UNDUE. It's a fixer-upper, but not a trainwreck. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, @XOR'easter the article just needs some small fixes, the structure is excellent, so is most of the text. Cinadon36 08:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some more work and remain optimistic. I moved the history-of-science section to the end of the article, which seems to be more in line with how Wikipedia typically does science articles: modern status first, history in the middle or later (compare the FA speed of light and the GA quantum mechanics, for example). I'll have to think more about if and how it needs revising. XOR'easter (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update? @Cinadon36 and XOR'easter: where does this stand? I see too many images with a mess of MOS:SANDWICHing, and lots of uncited text still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the uncited text is "summarizes the linked article" kind of stuff or standard reference material, which looked easy to fix, so I was hoping somebody else would do it. I may have time later this week. I have no great sense for how many images is too many; for whatever reason, the arrangement of images on Wikipedia pages hardly ever strikes me as aesthetically pleasing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some more work here and there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on this and Mars simultaneously has gotten me a bit cross-eyed, but I think my wrangling so far has been pretty successful. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been watching both, and impressed, but no time to respond yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on this and Mars simultaneously has gotten me a bit cross-eyed, but I think my wrangling so far has been pretty successful. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some more work here and there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter it's looking so much better. Back on the images issue, this section is dreadful. It has three images and a table, all conveying the same information (which I note is also covered in images throughout the article) in a way that creates a visual assault and a jamup of images over text. I can't figure out what to remove to improve the layout, but a table stuck below two huge images is ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That section has been bothering me, too. I ended up removing one of the wide images and the table. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge duplicate links issue: user:Evad37/duplinks-alt is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through and winnowed them. I think that widely-separated instances of technical terms are probably OK to link twice (a reader might encounter them in a later section without having seen their use in an earlier one), but there was definitely a lot that made for choppy reading. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and do not subscribe to the one-link-only philosophy, but some more winnowing could be done, particularly when a link is repeated within a level two heading. (There's an image placed at the bottom of a section, which is a MOS:ACCIM no no, but I don't know where to move it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you got it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and do not subscribe to the one-link-only philosophy, but some more winnowing could be done, particularly when a link is repeated within a level two heading. (There's an image placed at the bottom of a section, which is a MOS:ACCIM no no, but I don't know where to move it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this guy reliable? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that and thought about removing it, but he does appear to be a subject-matter specialist [2], so I set it aside for the moment to work on more pressing troubles. It can probably be removed as redundant with the JPL website that's currently footnote 1. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed now (though I wouldn't have a strong objection to adding it as an external link). XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent author format ... some have first name last name, most have last name, first name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've been trying to make the references consistent as I go along, but I haven't yet had the will to do a top-to-bottom revision of the metadata formatting. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, just making sure you had noticed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they're all "last name, first name" now. XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, just making sure you had noticed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Praemonitus has been doing good work on this. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through and applied various fixes and made refinements to the content and references. All tags have been addressed. It looks like XOR'easter and CactiStaccingCrane have been doing the same. Hopefully it's back close to FA quality now. Praemonitus (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @FAR coordinators: , is FARC necessary? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made the new Solar System infobox image and cleanup media layout in general for this FAR. I hope you found it satisfactory. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This YouTube video here: [3] from 3:47 – 4:20 shows a good graphic about the Solar System's composition. What else do you guys want me to add? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep listed I have finally eked out the time to look at the changes made since I last worked on this article, and I believe that it is up to the required standard. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep listed There are a lot of places that can see improvement, but this article is a FA, full stop. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the talk page states that this article is already in FARC. Could we get a status update? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure where you are seeing that; the nomination is still in the FAR stage. The status is, two editors have opined that the nomination should be closed without moving to FARC. If you disagree, you can enter a "Move to FARC" declaration. If you agree, you can enter "Close without FARC" (the equivalent of Keep FA status), and if you think more work is needed, that can also be stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed the 'If' at the start of the template message. Sorry. Old, tired eyes I guess. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Join the crowd :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed the 'If' at the start of the template message. Sorry. Old, tired eyes I guess. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure where you are seeing that; the nomination is still in the FAR stage. The status is, two editors have opined that the nomination should be closed without moving to FARC. If you disagree, you can enter a "Move to FARC" declaration. If you agree, you can enter "Close without FARC" (the equivalent of Keep FA status), and if you think more work is needed, that can also be stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep listed I am happy with the current version. Cinadon36 10:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.