Talk:Shackleton (crater)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Shackleton (crater) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
May 13, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Solar System / Moon (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Moon (marked as High-importance).
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

science@nasa[edit]

science@nasa links here --E-Bod 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mid-point[edit]

Could someone tell me what this means

"The rotational axis of the Moon lies within the rim of the crater, and is only a few kilometers from its mid-point"

Is the mid point the "center" of the crater? or the mid-point between its center and rim? Lunokhod 13:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Center of the crater. — RJH (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming craters[edit]

When/where is it appropriate to explain the reasons why a crater, surface feature or whole astronomical body was given a certain name?

Shackleton crater was named for Earnest Shackleton, famed antarctic explorer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelder (talkcontribs) 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton (single "a") is listed in the page's infobox in the eponym entry. As it's the least important aspect of a crater's description, my personal preference is to see such comments at the very end of the lead. — RJH (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LCROSS[edit]

Current plans for LCROSS are to impact Faustini and Shoemaker craters. So this page will need to be updated when that occurs.—RJH (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See followup at Talk:Lunar Precursor Robotic Program#Craters for LCROSS impact. (sdsds - talk) 00:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Shackleton (crater)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I inserted "The EDUS will impact at about 2.5 km/s. (1.5 mps), and is expected to create an impact crater about 100 m (328 ft) in diameter and 5 m (16 ft) deep. The resulting debris should reach an altitude of approximately 50 km (31 mi). The impact of the LCROSS should produce similar results." into hidden text since it needs a source. Once an inline citation can be added, please readd it to the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates with the building, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask why you changed the format on all the accessdate and date fields? I thought that breaks the date auto formatting? In addition, metric-only units is acceptable for scientific articles per MOS:CONVERSIONS.—RJH (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking over my edits. I updated the access dates since the sites haven't been check in several years. The formats for the dates were changed since they work for the "cite news"/"cite webs" templates. For the ones that required the standing format, I left it as it was (the "cite conference" template). Looking at MOS:CONVERSIONS, it looks like it says that conversion is not needed for scientific articles if "there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units". I wouldn't say this is the case. Feel free to revert if you believe it should go back to what it was. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I disagree that there has not been consensus on the units up until now because this is the first time it has been challenged by any of the editors. Probably it needs to be discussed, but to me it looked like consensus by lack of objection.—RJH (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)