Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cassini-Huygens

Cassini-Huygens
A very informative article, with pictures, references and many subarticles. Note that the mission is still continuing, but so far - as I have been watching the article for several weeks now - it is almost daily updated with current info. It would be nice to have it featured soon on the front page - to show that Wiki can have FA class articles about current events, something no traditional encyclopedia could ever accomplish. Comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain: Great article but I can't help but think that it is incomplete while the mission is ongoing. When the results are published and the is article updated to reflect them I'll support it, but for now I'm still trying to decide if the addition of these results, which will happen at some point, would make significant changes to the article.  violet/riga (t) 17:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a no-brainer in my opinion. The subject (the mission itself, rather than simply its findings) is very well covered. Should anything happen now, someone could add a few lines about it, but it won't change the article all that much. Phils 21:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - Too much editing and new information being presented in this article. Thus any version we see now and vote on now will likely be very different in the near future. This was the same reason why the FAC for 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake failed. --mav 23:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If the article is FA-worthy now, is it likely to became worse? FAs articles are not protected, and they are often further improved after passing FAC. We don't know everything. Any article considered 'extensive and uncontroversial' now can require major revision tommorow, as new facts are discovered. By saying 'it will become diffrent (read: expanded) in a few weeks' I can argue against *any* article. IF an article is good for FA today, it should be FA, no other IFs, BUTs and WHENs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object For the same reason mav gave - ongoing event articles are too problematic. Khanartist 23:44, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
 * Object Ongoing event should not be made featured articles for fairly obvious reasons. --Circeus 23:15, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a great article.  Mav raises a good point, but I think I ultimately have to disagree.  FA articles are still open to editing even though they're already recognized as good.  If this nom should fail, however, I would definitly support it (again) at the completion of the mission and the full results of the mission are available.  Just informally: Would everyone basically agree that that'd be a good idea?-SocratesJedi | Talk 11:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I'd love to see this as a featured article, but not yet. We need to wait until after new information has stopped flooding in. When the rate of editing slows down it will be possible to take a good look at the article and see what needs to be done to polish it. It's great that Wikipedia can come up with good extensive articles on current events almost as they happen, but for us to present these as our very best work we need to wait a few weeks at least. This article already is featured in a way, because it's there on the front page in the "In the news" section. Once it's no longer in the news we can see about making it a featured article. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 12:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - It is comprehensive, as of now - I don't think it can be regarded as incomplete just because more information will become available in the future. And the rapid, collaborative and continuous growth of an article like this (and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake) really show the very best that Wikipedia has to offer, in my opinion. Worldtraveller 18:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Has a current event gained FAS before? I read this otherd ay and thought it was brilliant. I support.--ZayZayEM 01:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't actionable, but we have to wait until the event is over. Things are changing to quickly for this article to remain complete. Nice article very informative, but I don't know if it will stay that way when the new content is inevitably added. So I'd say an Object for now. Why the rush anyways? BrokenSegue 05:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) changed my mind Support now. BrokenSegue 02:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Great article - why wait until it's over? Is any real science topic ever over. It's great now - it's new and fantastic stuff now and should be featured now! Vsmith 03:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The information that is available on the subject is presented quite comprehensibly.  There's new information found on almost every subject and history is continuing to be made, but that doesn't mean we should "wait" to present current information.  The best of Wikipedia (including FAs) should be continuing to change as new information comes, IMHO. We can't just keep on waiting for the history of tommorrow.  Living people and evolving events still have a written history and new information on long dead events will continue to be found. Besides that, FA policy and guidelines don't necessarily say to wait, only that they should be: "comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written."  It's about as stable as most FAs.  Changes over the last month have only been minor grammatical and formatting changes. :) --Sketchee 04:16, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, if you can do something about the references! External links that were used in the article must be placed under a "References" section, and books also under "References". External links of interest should go under "External links". - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The lead section is far too short. It has huge swaths of unwikified text. Not a single picture was taken by the orbitor or lander itself - they're all artists conceptions - it would be nice to have an actual photo that the probe produced. &rarr;Raul654 19:35, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all. The Phoebe, Titan and Jupiter images are all from the orbiter camera.--Deglr6328 21:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. &rarr;Raul654 21:06, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)