Wikipedia:Featured article review/Herbig–Haro object/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 removed by Dana boomer 17:10, 1 January 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: User talk:Worldtraveller, WT:WikiProject Astronomy, WT:WikiProject Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently needs more inline citations e.g. the 'Proper motions and variability' section doesn't have any. I left a note on the article's talkpage and have improved the article through some minor cleanup over the last year. It doesn't look like there's an existing community of editors working on this article at the moment. Tom B (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are any of those actually significant issues? The article seems to have a decent number of citations, some of which seem to be overviews of the area (e.g. 2 and 3 in the current numbering). There were no "citation needed"s in the article when you first posted this, although I see that a few requests for citations have been added since, but neither of these seem to be actual challenges to the validity of the material. The requirement for FA is only to have inline citations "where appropriate".  Djr32 (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for responding Djr. Yes the requirement is to have inline citations where appropriate: When_to_cite. This states, "anything likely to incur a reasonable challenge should be sourced to avoid disputes and to aid readers (see WP:BURDEN). In practice, this means most such statements are backed by an inline citation," including "close paraphrasing...statistics, and "statements based on someone's scientific work". The last example - scientific work - covers nearly all of the statements in Herbig, e.g. "Spectroscopic observations of HH objects show they are moving away from the source stars at speeds of 100 to 1000 km/s." or "These observations have also allowed estimates of the distances of some HH objects via the expansion parallax method." or "The eruption of jets from the parent stars occurs in pulses rather than as a steady stream." etc Tom B (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely that means that we should give appropriate credit for new information, rather than (as you seem to be interpreting it) to apply a considerably tougher requirement w.r.t. non-contentious facts to scientific articles than to all other topics? Djr32 (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * hi Djr, the criteria says, "data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work", that isn't an interpretation; "for new information" is an interpretation. If a fact is non-contentious amongst scientists then it wouldn't be a considerably tough requirement to find a source for it. Tom B (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I realised I never followed this one up - sorry, it's been a busy few weeks! Just to be clear, the only thing that the FA criteria says is that a FA must have inline citations where appropriate.  The "When to cite" essay you mention is an interpretation of policy, it is not itself a policy.  My point isn't whether it would be difficult to find a source that supports this fact or that fact, but rather that the criteria should be consistent between science articles and other fields.  Djr32 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * However, the FA criteria link directly to WP:When to cite to determine when citations are appropriate, and so the quote given by TomB above ("data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work") is what needs to be followed when determining what should be referenced in a featured article. Dana boomer (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * The main featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section was referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist. Agree with the concerns cited by . Sourceing issues still exists. Concerns not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 01:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist, still needs more inline citations Tom B (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.