Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Exoplanet/archive1: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
{{FARClosed|delisted}}
Line 103: Line 103:
*'''Delist'''. Thank you for the work done so far, but Dudley's comments remain unaddressed. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 20:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Delist'''. Thank you for the work done so far, but Dudley's comments remain unaddressed. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 20:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Delist'''. Sufficient work has not happened, as the article contains unreferenced statements and out-of-date information. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]] 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Delist'''. Sufficient work has not happened, as the article contains unreferenced statements and out-of-date information. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]] 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
{{FARClosed|delisted}}

Revision as of 11:47, 9 February 2017

Exoplanet

Exoplanet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: JorisvS, Drbogdan, PlanetStar, ‎Astredita,‎ Kevin Nelson, WikiProject Astronomy

Review section

This article no longer appears to meet criteria 1, 2b, 2c or 4 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of individual miscellanea. The table of contents is too extensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. For an article that should be written in summary style, it is over-long with too many individual specific examples that should be summarized to give a more general picture. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the now major astronomy topic deserves it once we address these issues, like expanding short sections and summarizing it. PlanetStar 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PlanetStar: Please note that "keep" and "delist" are only used in FARC (removal candidates) and not here in FAR (review). As noted above, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." From a quick glance, it does in fact look like it's much too long. If it can be condensed adequately without removing anything essential, I think it has a good chance at staying featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Relativistic beaming – Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star." Is this name correct? I thought relativistic beaming was for matter moving at near light speed. It might be better to use 'Doppler beaming' unless this use of 'Relativistic' can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms are used, as well as others. The effect is very small even for close-in planets. The description in the article is poor, though. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay yes, I found one instance that used the term in the context of a planet,[1] compared to many using "doppler beaming". Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More generally - I see that some work has started to improve the article, but I'm struggling to see how it will be brought back to FA level. As DrKay describes, the problems go far beyond simply being too long. I guess give it a little time and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a suggestion, the planet article tree can (and does) cover many of these topics. This article should focus on aspects specific to exoplanets: a high level discovery history plus the various detection methods, observation techniques, and nomenclature. Elements of the article that are highly dynamic, such as new discoveries, should be spun off to a child article, leaving just a summary here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

There are quite a few minor issues to fix

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lithopsian

The lead is, apart from being rather long, almost impossible to read because it is crammed full of inline citations. My understanding is that an FA should comprehensively address all the points that are summarised in the lead, making citations in the lead entirely unnecessary. If that were done here, the lead would be a lot more manageable and appear shorter even without having fewer words. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do this, but I hope someone else does (so page watchers know I don't plan on doing everything).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is too long. Citations don't make it hard to read in the final text. But the sentences in parenthesis make it hard to read. If we can turn these into flowing text it will be clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed(?) Graeme Bartlett's suggestion by incorporating the longer parantheticals into the surrounding text. The remaining parantheticals are now only 2 words each.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least until Fdfexoex reverted it. And JorisvS fixed it. Thanks :) (didn't see that until later)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. It most definitely is not that. Praemonitus (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
N

Artistic views should be removed, and the intro should have one of the actual pictures of an imaged exoplanet. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Multiple concerns were raised in the review section; moving here so we can establish consensus on what issues remain and where this stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
  • The article has a number of unreferenced statements:
  • Notes a to d.
  • Nomenclature section.
  • Last sentence of History of detection section.
  • The last sentences in the second and third paragraphs of Confirmed discoveries section.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph, and the last clause in the final paragraph, of the Planet-hosting stars section.
  • Last sentence of Moons section.
  • The Candidate discoveries section is out of date.
  • The article is not an easy read, it has far too many one sentence paragraphs, and the Detection techniques section is inadequate, but it does not seem to have any faults beyond fixing (I see that Tom Reding has already made a major contribution) by an editor far more competent than me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Thank you for the work done so far, but Dudley's comments remain unaddressed. DrKay (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Sufficient work has not happened, as the article contains unreferenced statements and out-of-date information. --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Exoplanet/archive1&oldid=764521724"