Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pluto


 * 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 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Pluto
This article was recently promoted to good article status and is very well referenced and it looks ready to become a featured article. Note that I have made minor contributions to the article as well as having previously nominated it for GA on 2 occassions. Watch37264 22:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(talk) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Comment &mdash; I gave the article a quick run-through and it seems pretty good. However there are a few small issues that I'd like to see addressed:
 * The pounds in "five pounds" should be linked to the monetary denomination, so it is clear this is the meaning. [fixed]
 * I don't believe that m in the sentence, "Pluto's mean apparent magnitude is 15.1 m with a maximum of 13.56 m" has any meaning as a unit. It should be removed. [fixed]
 * The two images in the "Mass and size" section are colliding, creating a gap in the text. Can this be fixed? (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [fixed]
 * Now the two images at the top of the "Physical characteristics" section are colliding. &mdash; RJH [fixed- although it looks a bit stupid]
 * It looks good on my browser. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "(C2H6)" should be written "(C2H6)", and "(CH4)" should be written "(CH4)". Also ethane should be wikilinked. [fixed]
 * The following sentence contains two 'however's: "However, his own published writing ... cleared their neighbourhoods, however, he..."
 * Not fixed. &mdash; RJH [fixed :0)]
 * Thank you. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I was all ready to give my support, but a quick read-through revealed some more issues. (Also a couple of the issues above are not really fixed.)
 * The first paragraph has too many sentences that begin with "it". [fixed]
 * In multiple locations in the text, dashes are used where &amp;mdash;'s would be more appropriate. [fixed- at least as far as I can tell]
 * "over 50°" is not a quarter of an orbit. That would be 90°. [fixed]
 * Can this be tightened up so it looks less awkward? "These can principally be divided into arising from one of two further mechanisms" => "These arise principally from two additional mechanisms." [fixed]
 * "This is a consequence of the Kozai mechanism" does not explain anything, at least for me.
 * Someone will have to contact Spiral Wave about that. Serendipodous 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sentence isn't meant to explain anything, it's meant to inform the reader what's responsible. The Kozai mechanism is tricky, and is wikilinked for the reader to follow up as they wish. I'm not sure what can be done about it: without meaning to sound facetious, the Kozai mechanism is responsible, but I don't believe it should be explained in and of itself, any more than a mention of gravitational interactions elsewhere require an explanation of Newtonian physics; just a link to gravity. I've tightened up the sentence to try and reflect why it's responsible, but I'm not sure I can do any better than that (maybe someone else can?). Spiral Wave 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Spiral; I'm sure that will be enough. Sheesh. This is rough. I'm beginning to feel like Scatman Crothers acting in The Shining; "What do you want Mr Kubrick? What do you want?" Serendipodous 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I usually get beat up for mentioning technical facts that require advanced, pre-existing knowledge on the part of the reader. So that's why I flagged it. Sorry this is proving difficult; believe me I can relate. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem, knowing where to draw the line is always a bugger, especially in articles that are both as technical and mainstream as this one. Spiral Wave 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So it's not clear to me that it's ready yet. Sorry. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: looks pretty good, I'd be very glad to support once some minor things have been taken care of. Apart from the above, I'm a bit worried by the layout (misplaced pictures cause a lot of white space in my IE) and the high number of references. I'd be happy to help, but right now I'm a bit busy since I just nominated Moon (another one in the Solar System series). Nick Mks 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that this article is good, but I have some comments on the prose. I will add more later as I have time to go through the rest of the article.
 * There is some repetition in the history section.
 * Was it a "false prediction" or an "incorrect prediction"?
 * What do you think about "Fortuitous mistake" as a heading? Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Potentially misleading; a lot of people, particularly Indians, are trying to retcon history to claim that they "discovered" Pluto before the evil Americans. I want to make it absolutely clear that whoever was first to make a prediction, the only person who discovered Pluto was Clyde Tombaugh. Serendipodous 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I just wanted to try to make the heading reflect the section a little bit more, but I see where you are coming from. Awadewit 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Under "Mass and size": I like your comparisons, but what is the actual mass of Pluto?
 * Observations were able to determine Pluto's diameter when it is at occultation with Charon[31] and its shape can be resolved by telescopes using adaptive optics. - awkward - two different verb tenses
 * *Observations were able to determine Pluto's diameter when it is at occultation with Charon. - "were . . . was" or "are . . . is." Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When it returns to a closer proximity to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface will increase, causing the nitrogen ice to sublimate into gas—creating an anti-greenhouse effect. - verb tenses
 * Pluto's temperature is 10 kelvins less than they expected - 10 kelvins fewer
 * The current best hypothesis is that the south pole of Pluto came out of shadow for the first time in 120 years in 1987, and extra nitrogen sublimated from a polar cap. - "current best" sounds odd; also, unnecessary comma
 * In October 2006, the spectroscopic discovery of ethane on Pluto's surface, presented by Dale Cruikshank of NASA/Ames Research Center (a New Horizons co-investigator) and colleagues was announced. - awkward passive
 * The MIT-Williams College team of James Elliot and Jay Pasachoff and a Southwest Research Institute team led by Leslie Young observed a further occultation of a star by Pluto on 12 June 2006 from sites in Australia. - why not place this with the other occultation information? it seems out of place right now
 * Pluto's orbit is markedly different to those of the planets. - "of the [major] planets" perhaps?
 * The previous time around, between 30 April 1483 and 23 July 1503 this situation persisted again for around 20 years similarly to the 20th century. - very awkward
 * Although this may suggest a regular structure in the short term (measured over several millennia), Pluto's orbit is in fact chaotic. - It is usually best not to begin a paragraph with "this" because its referent can be unclear.
 * Indeed, the part of Pluto's orbit that lies as close or closer to the Sun than Neptune lies about 8 AU above the ecliptic - perhaps "Neptune's orbit"?
 * I was also thrown by the white space. I don't mind it between sections, but it is distracting in the middle of a section. Would moving some of the pictures to the other side of the page help? Awadewit 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: There is only lots of white space when I view the article using Internet Explorer, not Firefox. Unfortunately, most people seem to use IE (at my university, it is the default (and sometimes only) browser on many library computers, for example). Awadewit 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses. Re: the number of refs. These were required for this article to pass GA status. It would be somewhat awkward to have to reduce them again for FA status. Re: major planets. According to the IAU's definition, dwarf planets are not planets, so "major planets" would be misleading. As regards the empty space, personally I think the best thing to do would be to make an image of the chart and upload it onto the Commons. Without the empty space, the picture of Pluto just eats into it and obscures the data. EDIT: re: empty space. Moved image two paragraphs down, as it deals with Nix and Hydra more than with Charon. Serendipodous 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

More comments Overall, I thought that this article was quite informative and it did an excellent job of explaining scientific concepts that many lay readers may be unfamiliar with. Here are the rest of my comments.
 * In "Other factors governing Pluto's orbit," I would use "first" and "second" rather than "firstly" and "secondly."
 * Some of the ashes of Pluto's discoverer, Clyde W. Tombaugh, are aboard the spacecraft. - This sentence was oddly placed and perhaps not relevant to the Pluto page.
 * Could the sentence be integrated into the paragraph better, then, if you really want to keep the information? Right now the paragraph jumps around a bit as it is; this sentence just adds to that feeling even more. Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Pluto's official status as a planet has been a constant subject of controversy, fueled by the past lack of a clear definition of planet, since at least as early as 1992, when the first Kuiper Belt Object, (15760) 1992 QB1, was discovered. - awkward - perhaps move date earlier "has been a constant subject of controversy since at least 1992..."
 * although there was no official consensus at the time on whether to call it a planet - "whether or not to call it a planet"
 * stating that "the definition stinks" albeit "for technical reasons." - I find this an odd construction - shouldn't a scientific definition fail for "technical reasons"? This suggests that it fails for insignificant reasons to the lay reader.
 * Perhaps you could find a more precise quotation from this person?
 * I already did. :) Serendipodous 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The page should either be written in American English or British English. Some sections appeared to be in AE and some in BE. Please choose a dialect and standardize the page.
 * Some of the footnotes are incorrectly cited (3 is missing the journal publication information, for example, and 4 has some odd italics going on). Please look through the notes carefully and fix them up. Also, please standardize them; decide whether you are beginning with the author's last name or first name, etc.
 * The "Further Reading" section seems rather thin. First, please cite all of the sources consistently and fully. Second, what if I really was curious about Pluto and wanted to learn a lot more? Where would I go? You seem to be referring me to two pages in one book and an article in the Times and one other book. Surely there are better sources out there!
 * I would also cut down on the "External links" - the NPR segments, for example, seem unnecessary since you have explained that material in the article. I would only link to sites that are going to provide significantly more information that is directly related to Pluto. For example, the bibliography of science fiction which is set on Pluto belongs on the "Pluto in fiction" page, I would think.
 * One question: is the image of Pluto at the top of the page supposed to look pixalated? It seemed odd to me (maybe I'm missing something). Awadewit 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could say in the caption why it is pixellated. Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: I've addressed some of your comments (personally I find the whole "firstly" thing a bit pedantic, but it does seem to be a niggle with a lot of people, so I changed it). I don't really see the point of standardising this article's English; all that will happen if someone picks one type is that eventually someone else will alter it or add material in their own style. The little addendum about Clyde Tombaugh's ashes being on the New Horizons is a nice little fact that links the latest exploration of Pluto back to its discovery. I'd keep it. And if you want an image of Pluto that isn't pixellated, then you'll have to wait another eight years or so. Serendipodous 07:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) :''Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout. Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader.'' - WP:ENGVAR. "Firstly" is incorrect, by the way. I'll reread the article again later. Awadewit 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I dissent. I am also British, which means I use British spellings. And given that the majority of English Wikipedia users are American, and given that many Americans have reverted my BE spellings as errors, I can only imagine the result if I standardised this article to British spelling. If there has to be a standard spelling, let it be American. It's easier. Serendipodous 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of articles in BE on wikipedia, but do what you think is best. I am almost ready to support. See the remaining issues above. Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This article is well-written, well-sourced and (as far as I can tell, but I'm no expert) comprehensive. I was particularly impressed with its ability to convey difficult information to a lay audience. I really learned a lot about Pluto by reading this article and I actually remember it. Nice job. Awadewit 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Small etiquette point: Please do not strike out other reviewers' comments - it is changing their statements and only they are allowed to do that. I had to go through the whole list of my comments again and see what I had agreed was taken care of and what the pluto editors believed had been taken care of. I quote from the talk page guidelines: "As a rule, don't edit others' comments." The exceptions to that rule do not apply in this case (e.g. personal insult, libel, etc.). Awadewit 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry :(. I was hoping to make sure that anyone logging on here for the first time would know which topics had been addressed. I should have been more considerate. Undone. Serendipodous 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. I think that it is more common for editors to write "done" or "fixed" under each comment or some sort of response to indicate that it has been addressed. Awadewit 16:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Interesting and well written. I'm a bit confused why "[the surface] is composed of over 98 percent nitrogen ice, with traces of methane and carbon monoxide." and yet the diagram on the RHS shows "frozen methane" for a crust. This this nitrogen ice a very thin layer on top? Colin°Talk 12:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [fixed]

Tony 08:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  It's excellent now!—Not yet up to the required "professional" standard of writing. I looked at the first couple of paras, which didn't fill me with confidence. Please find someone else to copy-edit carefully throughout the text. Don't just fix these examples.
 * Why "second-largest" but "tenth largest"? Both in the opening sentence, too. And why is there a hyphen here: "one-fifth the mass of the Earth's Moon"? Better "a fifth".
 * Rather than force your lay readers to travel the link to "AU", why not gloss it here and put in parentheses afterwards? ("The distance from the Earth to the Sun", isn't it?) [fixed]
 * "during a portion of its orbit"—plainer, please: "during part of its orbit".
 * "so Charon is currently regarded as a moon of Pluto"—If you want to indicate that this view is temporary/unstable, better to be explicit. Otherwise, remove "currently" as redundant. [fixed]
 * "several of the natural satellites or moons"—Is that an equative "or"? If so, at least use commas around "or moons". Several is unencyclopedic: how many? Let's give our readers precise information. [fixed]
 * "From its discovery by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930, Pluto was considered"—The first word is ambiguous, and our readers shouldn't have to get half way through the sentence to disambiguate it. "Since"? [fixed]
 * Response: good call on a few of those. As regards portion vs. part, I think I can rely on the vocabulary of the average reader to be above a first grade level. As regards the opening sentence, I don't see anything wrong with it. Serendipodous 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: now that Moon has passed, I could try to help here a bit. Are any of the above comments still unadressed? Nick Mks 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've addressed everything except the bits I didn't agree with. There are a few external links that were reccommended for removal that I decided to keep, plus the British/American English issue is unresolved. The Further Reading section is also unexpanded. Serendipodous 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really much I can do then... I did look at the external links, and must agree that it's a bit weird to have articles from news sites there, they could probably be used as refs. Also, I guess the EL need to use the cite template as well, to include author, publisher, full title, date and last access. I'll try to take care of that. Nick Mks 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that the white space I had gotten out has returned somehow. Also, many inline refs will need the full citation parameters like I did for the external links yesterday. Nick Mks 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The citations all look fine to me. If you mean that they don't have "last-first" in their formats than that's OK; I got the Solar System article featured without that. Serendipodous 21:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, some don't have a date or last access. But that's just nitpicking, for me this doesn't prevent a support. Nick Mks 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it help with the way-back machine if people are forced to use that to verify your information at some point in the future (say, it disappears from the site - one of the dangers of using web sources)? Awadewit 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So they say. I didn't use them in the past either, since I thought that refs in FAs should always be current and updated if necessary, and these dates therefore redundant. Nick Mks 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: Article is well written, well sourced. Pictures are wonderful.--Indianstar 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: enough of this, it's more than okay now. Nick Mks 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I couldn't find a problem with it when I looked at it. — Pious7Talk Contribs 16:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are a lot of pictures that distort the text which is a pain. However, that does not mean that I think that there should be no pictures. --88wolfmaster 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support well written and referenced, another great planet article (although only one isn't in very good shape, must be... because of jokes). igordebraga ≠ 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * "Originally considered a planet, Pluto has since been recognised as the largest member of a distinct region called the Kuiper belt." According to their respective pages, (136472) 2005 FY9 and (136108) 2003 EL61 both have larger radii than Pluto.

If they do then they're wrong. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"In the late 20th and early 21st centuries however, many objects similar to Pluto were discovered in the outer solar system, most notably the trans-Neptunian object Eris, which is slightly larger than Pluto." It even contradicts itself.

Eris isn't a Kuiper belt object. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Indeed, Pluto is smaller than seven of the Solar System's natural satellites." I believe this would be easier to read and understand if it said something about moons, not Natural Satellites.

OK. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At the top of the discovery paragraph, it mentions "Tombaugh's work was to systematically image the night sky in pairs of photographs taken two weeks apart, then examine each pair and determine if any objects had shifted position in that time." It does not say what method he used. I remember seeing somewhere about a machine he used to flick the photos back and forth. Can someone please find this, and link to it?

It's called a blink comparator. I can work it in if you want. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It mentions (At the bottom of the discovery paragraph) that the predicitons were near where Pluto turned out to be. It does not mention that Percival Lowell is sometimes incorrectly credited with discovering the planet. I am not sure how to say that in an article, so will someone please put that in there, along with possibly finding an incorrect reference saying Percival Lowell discovered it.

Seems a bit irrellevant to me; that Percival Lowell gave a false prediction for Pluto's position seems enough. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "The name Pluto was first suggested by Venetia Burney (later Venetia Phair), a twelve-year-old girl from Oxford, England." This makes it sound like she is still 12 years old.


 * "Pluto's distance from Earth makes in-depth investigation difficult. Many details about Pluto will remain unknown until 2015, when the New Horizons spacecraft is expected to arrive there." This makes it sound like the New Horizons craft will be a much more extensive missions than it actually is.

Given how little we know about Pluto, it doesn't need to be very extensive. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not mention under the appearance and composition sections wether or not it s visible to the naked eye.

Actually, it does. It says that it appears star-like even in large telescopes, which pretty much rules out seeing it with the naked eye. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of gas, most likely a mixture of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, derived from the ices on its surface." Most likely does not sound very encyclopedic.

Fixed and cited. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * some minor things, but "From the rate of dimming, the atmosphere was determined to have a pressure of 0.15 Pa, roughly 1/700,000 that of Earth." 1. wouldn't this read better as "the atmospheric pressure was determined as", and 2. Is there are particular reason Pascal is not spelled out? Both of these also occour here: "Surprisingly, the atmosphere was estimated to have a pressure of 0.3 Pa, even though Pluto was farther from the Sun than in 1988, and hence should be colder and have a less dense atmosphere."

Ok... Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Relative to Neptune, the amplitude of libration is 38°, and so the angular separation of Pluto's perihelion to the orbit of Neptune is always greater than 52° (=90°-38°). The closest such angular separation occurs every 10,000 years." The 52° (=90°-38°) part is confusing. Should those parenthesis be there?

90-38= 52. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * under the section on Charon, I think there should be more information on what the tidal locking means, like people on one side of Pluto would never see Charon, Etc...

OK. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Astronomers now believe Pluto to be the largest of the Kuiper belt objects." Again, the largest part, which has been disproven


 * "Eris (see below) is also larger than Pluto but is not strictly considered a member of the Kuiper belt population." This is the only place I have seen this (that Eris may not be a Kuiper Belt object) mentioned. It is not mentioned in the see below section, nor is it mentioned in the Kuiper Belt article.

Well the Kuiper belt article's a mess. Eris is a scattered disc object. Added it to the Kuiper belt article. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)



I have to leave now, so that's it from me. Wow... This is the first time I have ever said anything on a FA candidate, and in my opinion, I said a lot... Just an interesting note: the date of the most recent star occultation and the naming of the 2 new moons was only 9 days apart, and the moons were discovered less than 1 month before the occultation. Mega lodon 99     ( Talk ) 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody else still awake here, or do I take over? Nick Mks 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Serendipodous did good work, and I like it now.    Mega lodon 99      ( Talk ) 21:01, 27 April 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.