Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neptune/archive2


 * 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 not promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Neptune

 * previous FAC

Since the last nomination, there have beeen nummerous additions. Right now, the quality of the article seems good enough to be renominated. Are there more upgrades necessary? Nergaal 11:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a nice comprehensive article, and the things which are not covered here are appropriately covered by the side articles. Questions on what table and box is being used mean less to me than the encyclopedic substance. If I were to change anything, it would be to move the section on "Moons" up and in front of the section on "Rings", since they seem to be a related topic. Otherwise, nicely done. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  12:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Object &mdash; I only did a partial review of this article, but I discovered a number of issues that prevent me from lending support.
 * There are 'citation needed' tags.
 * The 'Moons' section is too cluttered with images.
 * The 'Naming' section is inadequately referenced.
 * The capitalization in the Atmosphere part of the infobox is inconsistent.
 * There are too many single-sentence paragraphs.
 * The sentences in the lead discussing the 'Neptune Orbiter with Probes' is not covered by the body. I don't believe this belongs in the lead as it is just a proposal. The lead does not even mention the moons or rings, so it does not really summarize the article.
 * Sorry. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments - Some notes, more to come. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to leave the size and mass comparison with Uranus out of the lead as it comes across awkwardly as is. If the consensus is to leave it in, then it needs some rewriting.


 * There needs to be an introductory sentence in the Discovery section along the lines of: "Though not officially discovered until the 19th century, Neptune was first observed over two centuries earlier by Galileo." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Para 3 of Mass and composition section needs referencing, moons section could do with some more too, and rings section, and exploration section.

Prose isn't too bad, but agree that paragraphs need combining. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it it's good enough for me-- Phoenix 15 12:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there are citations needed. --RandomOrca2 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.