Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009.

List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium
This list has been comprehensively referenced and I believe is now ready for promotion. As per the vexed issue of sortability, that has been debated and the final conclusion appears to be that there is little practicality in creating a list 25 fields wide and 5 fields long. Please see Ling.Nut's prototype and Nergaal's test for an idea of what a sortable list would look like, and keep in mind that any future list would likely be wider than either of them.  Serendi pod ous  18:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I forgot; User:Ruslik0, User:Nergaal and User:Dojarca all made indispensable contributions to this list, so I would like them listed as conominators. Thanks.  Serendi pod ous  02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. The citation for this list is very complicated, and actually operates in two dimensions. :-) For instance, the main citation above the name for each planet gives the planet's axial tilt, but the main citation above the name for each satellite (except the Moon) does not. However, the citation for the axial tilts of all the moons is given in the Moon-Axial tilt reference along the side. Also, sometimes an accurate value for a moon's axial tilt is known (see Ganymede) and in that case the citation overrides the "blanket citation". I hope that made sense.  Serendi pod ous  02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent list! I like sortability, but this is still great and less cluttered without. My only concerns are:
 * A thorough but short meaning of hydrostatic equilibrium should be given in the lead rather than just a link, especially if it's in the title.
 * The See also section belongs before the references, though I would delete the whole thing; the links are already in the article.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by (unless otherwise cited) in the refs; I don't see anything cited otherwise elsewhere. Reywas92 Talk  02:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Can't see any problem. Though I fix some links in the lead for you.— Chris!  c t 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The citation dates are inconsistent, some use ISO format and others use day-month year format.
 * Ref 29 needs  added to it.
 * Web titles in all caps should be converted to sentence case (ref 63).
 * Many refs are missing publisher info: Refs 53–61 and 6–15 as examples.
 * Authors need to be listed consistently; some are listed "first name last name" and others are listed "last, first". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sorted most of your issues, but for some reason a number of citations, though their dates are written in IPO, appear as day/month on the screen.  Serendi pod ous  18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will sort those out manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is general problem of all Cite XXX templates. They do not use consistent format of dates. Ruslik (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The list is well written and is scientifically sound. All information is supported by reliable sources. This list is the key list for the Solar System Project and its promotion to FL status is long overdue. (Disclosure: I participated in writing this list, but my involvement was only minor). Ruslik (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sweet support nicely put together, comprehensive and pretty! (Disclaimer: I also contributed to the list although I would say in a relatively minor amount.) Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to all: a new large KBO has just been announced, and it has had to be inserted into the lower table. It will be a short while before all the necessary calculations are completed.  Serendi pod ous  15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved.  Serendi pod ous  18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - very nice indeed... but...
 * IAU should be placed in parentheses after the first use of the expanded version to avoid ambiguity.
 * Call me picky but I think "However, many other objects in the Solar System, including the Sun itself, 19 known natural satellites, and potentially scores of minor planets, are also massive enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium." needs citation, in particular a quote like "potentially scores of...."
 * Why abbreviate temperature to temp. where nothing else is abbreviated?
 * Surface area for the Sun says km2:E[f] - I assume that should be a proper wikilink?
 * Photospheric composition is a list of element abbreviations which is not obvious to a non expert. Consider linking, e.g. Fe to Iron, etc...
 * Galactic Center or Galactic center? Be consistent.
 * Remove the space after the asterisk in the second table, to be consistent with the use of the dagger in the same table.
 * Maybe worth clarifying that most of the round satellites don´t have astronomical symbols.
 * Issues resolved.  Serendi pod ous  00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All rotation periods appear to be (sync) - what does this mean and if they are all that way, is it worth just making a general note to that effect (and explaining what it means for a non-expert)?
 * Only the moons are sync, and it is explained; the first "(sync)" has a footnote after it. Serendi pod ous  00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Wrong note. Subbed.  Serendi pod ous  13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it´s just IE7 but the notes don´t seem to work for me. I can´t find a [n] or a [bb] for example.  The links (I think) work but it´s odd that I can´t see those footnotes in the list at the bottom.
 * They work for me.  Serendi pod ous  00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What does " (unless otherwise cited) " mean in your references? Is it a get-out clause in case the reference retrieval dates change?  And any reason why some references have this caveat and others don´t, even when they´re from the same source?
 * Basically, "unless otherwise cited" means that the note holds for the entire line or column unless another citation says otherwise. It saves me having to cite every single field individually.  Serendi pod ous  00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a note explaining what it means.  Serendi pod ous  13:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * issue solved 100%. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * These are minor points but there are quite a few of them. Should these be addressed and I don´t get a chance to get back online, I´m happy for the FL directors to overlook my minor oppose.  Good work.  The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.