Wikipedia:Peer review/Definition of planet/archive1

This article has had a troubled evolution, and has had many accusations of POV levelled at it, not all of which were entirely unfounded. I have worked on it for some time and I was hoping to determine whether or not the POV had been eliminated. Serendipodous 19:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Can't you SEE I'm a man on a mission here, trying to get a point across? Couldn't your stringing together quadruple negatives WAIT two or three days? Sheesh. Just kidding ... I think ... Ricardo the Texan 22:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any indication of POV. A few minor suggestions, though:
 * Suggest replacing &hellip;long-rumoured Kuiper Belt&hellip; with long-speculated, or something else. A rumour implies that someone already knew the truth, but wasn't revealing it.
 * There has been outcry at the prospect of Pluto's "demotion,"&hellip; -- reference?
 * Pluto and its satellite Charon, are the only planet/moon pair in the solar system whose barycenter lies above the planet's surface, which means that both orbit each other. I don't think this is quite accurate. The earth and the moon also orbit each other, but the earth is much more dominant.
 * Even our own Moon&hellip;. This phrase demonstrates a systemic bias against non-terran Wikipedians
 * The in-line references should be replaced with proper footnotes.
 * Pburka 23:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of the sources for the "outcry" that I have found are actually mirrors of Pluto's own Wikipedia page; Pluto. I will need to dig a little further before I can find an independent source. I'm not sure what you mean by replacing the inline references with proper footnotes; do you mean removing them entirely, and placing the links in the references section, or do you mean rewriting them with superscript? If it is the latter, I would appreciate it if you explained to me how to do it, because it is one of the many things about Wikipedia that I'm still not sure about. Thanks! Serendipodous 00:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I've never used them myself, but the recommended style for footnotes is described in Footnotes. I hope this helps! Pburka 01:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the sectioning makes sense. "Orbital criterion" is, essentially, the Pluto history and debate. The double planet section references Pluto and Charon as if the latter had not been brought up, even though it is explicitly referenced in the lead to the previous section. I can see you've picked the three criteria in an attempt to encapsulate the ideas, but I don't think it hangs together, because the Pluto debate (which is as much a mass issue as an orbital one) dominates so much of the first (and longest) point. Marskell 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this debate is that so many of the issues are interrelated. Fusion is related to mass, which is related to orbit, and finding a means to categorise the issues coherently is a real headscratcher. My redraft was an attempt to counter some of the earlier criticism that this article was "all about demoting Pluto," which wasn't my intention at all. The earlier organisation, which was more historical, was somewhat haphazard, and I wanted one that focused more on the issues, rather than events. I admit, it has created it's own problems; I still have yet to address the possibility of ejected planets or interstellar planets, because that issue is as much to do with the fusion criterion as with the orbital criterion, and is very difficult to fit into the current structure. How do you think it should be restructured?Serendipodous 12:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the history shows some difficulty in arriving at the right format. One idea would be after History and Etymology to have a Common Criterion Section with a few sentences for the three. Then have Specific Debates (actually, bad name but something like that) and go thru Pluto etc. This may return it too much to its previous format, but just a thought. Marskell 14:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)