Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galaxy

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

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Galaxy[edit]

This is a summary-style article on an important astronomy topic. It is on both the vital articles and the core topics listings, and has achieved GA status. This article now seems FA-worthy, but, if not, then please let me know what needs be done to take it to that level. Specific details would be much appreciated. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is well written and makes excellent use of inline citations from reliable sources. The images are informative. It's good to see that a lot of effort has gone into such an important topic. Jay32183 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jay. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why, in the lead, is Peculiar galaxy capitalized, when elliptical galaxy, starburst galaxy and irregular galaxy are not? There are a couple of wayward full dates in the refs that aren't wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any more Chrislintott 11:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~ The first half of this article is very well-written, but it falls apart at section 5 "Formation and evolution". This section is incoherent and reads like a cut-and-paste job. Succeeding sections could use some work. --Ideogram 09:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it was a cut-and-paste job, for the most part. :-/ I just performed a re-write of the Formation section to make it more coherent. Could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work so far. Please be sure to give the same attention to the succeeding sections. --Ideogram 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I also tried to refine the Evolution section a little more. I'm unclear about the issues with the following sections. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining problems have been fixed. I am pleased to change my vote to Support. --Ideogram 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent article. Good work. John D. Croft 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Saw it recently as a Good Article candidate, and was very impressed by it. I think the level of depth and referencing is certainly enough for FA status. The Land 13:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent, informative article. I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured. PlatformerMastah 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.