Wikipedia:Featured article review/Comet Hale-Bopp/archive1


 * 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 User:Joelr31 18:55, 29 December 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified USer:Noren, User:Serendipodous, WikiProjects Astronomy and Solar System. Marskell (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Worldtraveller's FAs are now far and away the largest group on the few/no citations list and they need to be gone through. The successful FAR of SL9 is what I'd like to shoot for, though help is needed. I've contacted a couple of astronomy editors.

Most obvious concern is referencing. I have formatted a couple of refs and dropped some dubious ones. Also concerned about some of the prose ("For almost everyone who saw it, Hale-Bopp was simply a beautiful and spectacular sight in the evening skies.") Finally, I would like some feedback on due weight wrt the Heaven's Gate and Art Bell stuff. Marskell (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Demote: Tim, I don't think this article would pass muster at an FAC; Much of the information could probably be easily referenced, and there should be at least one ref per paragraph. The two tags are going to have to be addressed; they read like the apologetic writings of Ufologists. I've given the article a copyedit, but much more needs to be done.  Serendi pod ous  15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, Serendip, that we wait a full two weeks before declaring keep or remove. There are no rapid demotions here. Even if it's just a copyedit, any improvement is good improvement. Marskell (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What a shame. Obviously it's not FA material, it'll be pretty tough to get it back up to FA status. &mdash; Ceran  [speak]  23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I should be able to help with referencing, but my language skills are certainly not up to professional level. I am a bit short on time for the next couple weeks (damn deadlines...), but I'll nevertheless try to get things moving forward some time next week. Random astronomer (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Note No work has been done in a week. Random astonomer, do you intend on performing additional changes? Joelito (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. Referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have started adressing the issue with references. I'm still quite busy, but will hopefully make some progress within the next week. Random astronomer (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update I'm still working on it, still making slow progress, still more to do. Please add more s if I have missed statements needing them. Random astronomer (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks much better. Nice work so far. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than fixing those five remaining s I have no plans. If there are any additional concerns, I can try to sort them out, too. Random astronomer (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm finished. The claims that in my opinion need citation have one or two now. Random astronomer (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. Keep DrKiernan (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep: The referencing is much improved, and so is the tone. I'd lean towards Keep on that basis, but I'm concerned that it doesn't seem as comprehensive as I'd expect. I don't have many ideas for what else needs adding, though. A diagram of the orbit would be nice, e.g. like or, and the implications of the abundance of argon for the comet's formation should be covered. There seem to be several short paragraphs, too, which can be a bit jarring. -- Avenue (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I played around with gnuplot and managed to create a first version of the orbit diagram. I am a bit wrong person to make assessment on the comprehensiveness of article &mdash; I'm extragalactic guy and know little about comets &mdash; but glancing through some papers there does seem to be few missing topics that could be expanded. One of them is the origin of Hale-Bopp (solar nebula vs. pre-solar nebula vs. GMC), which is also connected to the detection of Argon. Then there is the composition, as the comet was quite dust-rich and the dust seems to be a bit atypical in some aspects. I will have to do quite a bit reading on these topics, though. The discussion of the orbit can also be expanded a bit; that should be straightforward. Random astronomer (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Left open to address comprehensiveness concerns. Joelito (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of little MoS issues throughout, the usual for the astronomy articles where they don't have a convention for citing authors (pls choose last name first or first name first and make them consistent); MOS:ALLCAPS, WP:DASH, WP:ITALICS, etc. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The additions about noble gases, dust, and its previous visit have alleviated my concerns on this front. Thanks. -- Avenue (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.