Talk:Extinct comet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Extinct comet is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 
WikiProject Solar System (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

Lead and subsequent sections[edit]

A recent edit of this article removed 'duplicate' material from the body of the article, and transferred the key citations from that material to appear against relevant sentences in the lead.

Here are two quotes from WP:LEAD

(Lead section)
...The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist...
Citations
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. (emphasis added)

I am reverting the edits because the material was 'duplicated' (though not, I believe, identical) to reflect thte fact that material should not appear only in the lead and not in the body of the article, and leaving the refs in the body because i didn't think it was particularly controversial content that should be immeidately cited. The thing about where the refs should be is a judgement call and I'm happy to see them moved if other editors think differently, but I'm pretty sure keeping the content as it was is consistent with WP policy. Cheers.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Comets vs. Category:Lists of comets[edit]

Category:Lists of comets is itself a category within Category:CometsRobert Greer (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)