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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Moon 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.
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)
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 (talk • contrib) 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 (talk • contrib) 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)