Talk:Controversy over the discovery of Haumea/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a good piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I've made some MoS fixups that you can check
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See comments below
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * For now, hopefully will stay that way
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments in no particular order: The citing is really the biggest issue. "... Brown came to suspect fraud." isn't cited, and it and most of what's in the "Reaction" section needs to be. "IAU protocol is that ..." isn't cited. "... accusing the IAU of political bias." isn't cited. And so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead section needs some kind of conclusion. It's good that the lead overall is light, because this is a subarticle that readers have probably already seen the summary of before they clicked, but still something of the IAU resolution should be mentioned.
 * "Haumea ... clearly did not fit the bill": It should be spelled out why it didn't (because it wasn't larger than Pluto, I guess)
 * I'm okay with the neutrality of the article in general. But, the citing is very light here, and in a "controversy" article, the citing should be much more thorough. I know per-sentence footnoting is tedious to some, but it's really required here, at least in the 'controversial' spots.
 * I'm okay with using the scientists' blogs to support what they thought or some aspects of what they did. But they can't be used to support other facts.  Current footnote 2b ("Within an hour,") and footnote 3c ("At the CSBN, the name was decided by a single vote.") have to be cited to neutral sources.
 * Cite 4 "Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2005-O36 : 2003 EL61" needs a publisher ... I wasn't sure what it should be.

Is anything happening to resolve the issues raised in this review? There were a couple of edits by the nominator in this direction on March 1, but nothing else. It's already been longer than the specified 7 days since the review was done for changes to be made. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have the resources to verify these things myself. If we were able to access the primary data (computer logs etc.), wouldn't that be OR? I'm not sure where else we'd get the info, if not from Brown, who's the one bringing the charges. The IAU has sided partially w Brown, but I don't think they've ever made their reasoning public for us to cite (and the Spanish team, of course, accuses them of bias). I'm not sure it's possible to correct RS reqs. kwami (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You've misread my review comments. The article doesn't have to decide who's right in the controversy, but it does have to fully cite the description of the controversy that it presents.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no further activity on this article, so I'm failing the GA. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)