Wikipedia:Featured article review/H II region/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 Joelr31 22:53, 7 June 2009.

FAR commentary

 * Listed at WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts; main editor vanished

This article has very fiew citation and is not so complete; some sections need an improvement, expecially about the origin. Furthermore, a concise explanation of the late stages of the regions is needed. -- Roberto  Segnali all'Indiano  10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I translated this article to spanish wikipedia and made it a good article there, the spanish one is a little bit larger and referenced, so it would be a good source to make this one better. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations have improved somewhat since the start of FAR, and I'll try to help with it more during this week. Random astronomer (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I added some new source and will add some more. Ruslik (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ruslik's work. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Cite for the Herschel quote?
 * Perhaps the details of Russell's and Bok's seminal papers could be given?
 * I wonder if there should be a cite for comments like "thought to contain"?
 * There is some repetition of points from the end of the "Observations" section at the end of the "Origin and lifetime" section, though neither one looks out-of-place particularly. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, the work done is not enough: it's good adding references, but the article needs an improvement on large-scale. Quoting Cirt. -- Roberto  Segnali all'Indiano  04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but it's important not to forget this article... -- Roberto  Segnali all'Indiano  09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have made some fixes to the references and it's little nicer now. I think to article is not the bad enough to delist though it need a lot of work. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 04:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently all statements (except some minor) in the article are cited. I also expanded the lead, which now satisfies FA criteria. I think the article may be kept as FA. Ruslik (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I finished. The article can be definitely kept now. Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, 1c issues have been addressed IMO. Good work Ruslik! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"thought to contain many times as much matter as would be needed to create a planetary system like that of the Milky Way." The Milky Way is a galaxy rather than a planetary system. DrKiernan (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Ruslik_ Zero 09:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just one problem now: File:Rosette Nebula dss2.jpg is nominated for deletion . I recommend removing the image for now, until the deletion request is resolved. DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: problems raised are addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are repetitive words from higher in the heading hierarchy in several section headings, per WP:MSH. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.