Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Solar System/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:55, 12 May 2009 [1].

Solar System

[edit]

The lead falls down on a number of points:

I think this part of the article fits the "May contain nuts" description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria

  • professional standards of presentation
  • well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text

  • briefly summarize the most important points covered
  • stand on its own as a concise version of the article
  • more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible
  • avoid ... and over-specific descriptions

The first paragraph reads like the ingredients from a Walmart microwave meal:

Solar System

Ingredients:eight planets, five dwarf planets, 173 moons, billions of small bodies (asteroids, icy Kuiper belt objects, comets, meteoroids, interplanetary dust).

This is not; of a professional standard; brilliant; or even engaging.

This would be better:

The Solar System is the astronomical name for the Sun, the Earth and the Moon, and the rest of the planetary system.

HarryAlffa (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is the same style, it just lists the categories of orbiting objects - dead boring.

The bullet list of planets and the other of dwarf planets looks a mess with all the trailing 000, 0000s, of distance in kilometres, and not in neat Astronomical Units. I would say that even including AU measurements is an over-burdening with detail in the lead.

The numbering of the planets I think is unique in any text, and it looks messy. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points, but since your only problem is with the lead, wouldn't it be easier to voice your concerns on the article talk page? FAR is a fairly lengthy process and the lead problems can easily be resolved in a matter of a few days. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Ckatz has refered to bellow, I've described these problems before, but the Ckatz Cabal simply wouldn't listen. The lead is a terrible piece of writing - end of story. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. Always blame the omnipotent cabal. The issue was never that the lead was good enough; it was that none of the solutions you offered were any good either, and that they in fact made the lead worse. Serendipodous 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There. I've had a go at rewriting it. No doubt you'll hate it. Serendipodous 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have had a go. It's a first draft, but you cannot say, "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", nor can you claim that it does "avoid over-specific descriptions". My understanding of the Lead Guide is that the solar system as a whole should be introduced, not details of the intrinsic components. Something like this is much better.
Example lead

The Solar System is the astronomical name for the Sun, the Earth and the Moon, and other orbiting bodies which make up the rest of the planetary system. It is most notable for the planet Earth as the only place in the Universe known to evolve and harbour life.

The Sun determines the solar system, it makes up 98.6 percent of the mass of the system, and the gravity of this mass dominates the rest. As well as generating heat and light from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium at the core of the Sun, a continual but fluctuating, low density emission of charged particles called the solar wind "blows a bubble" called the heliosphere in the interstellar medium. This medium between the stars, most commonly thought of as outer space, is a very high vacuum but still has enough matter occupying it to interact with the high velocity (750 km/s) solar wind.

The Earth's orbit around the Sun is nearly a perfect circle, but it is more accurately described as an oval shaped, or elliptical orbit. Everything in the Solar System has an elliptical orbit, with some more elliptical than others. All of the planets orbit the Sun at different distances but on roughly the same plane as the Earth - the plane of the ecliptic. If you could look at the solar system "edge on" then all the planets would roughly be in this horizontal plane around the Sun.

I've introduced life, evolution and the uniqueness of it in the solar system. I have named only 3 components of the solar system, but have used them to explain or introduce significant structural aspects of the solar system: the gravitational influence of the Sun; the Heliosphere; elliptical orbits & their difference from perfect circles; and the plane of the ecliptic. In passing I've explained how the Heliosphere is created, and introduced the Sun's core, nuclear fusion of hydrogen, heat, light, the solar wind and that interstellar space equals outer space. All in only three, short, engagingly written paragraphs of prose, without overburdening the reader with extensive details.
Current lead

The Solar System[a] consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity, all of which formed from the collapse of a giant molecular cloud approximately 4.5 billion years ago. The Sun's retinue of objects circle it in a nearly flat disc, most of the mass of which is contained within eight relatively solitary planets whose orbits are nearly circular. The four smaller inner planets; Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, also called the terrestrial planets, are primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, also called the gas giants, are composed largely of hydrogen and helium and are far more massive then the terrestrials.

Two main belts of small bodies exist. The asteroid belt, which lies between Mars and Jupiter, has commonality with the terrestrial planets as it is composed mainly of rock and metal. The Kuiper belt (and its subpopulation, the Scattered disc), which lies beyond Neptune's orbit, is composed mostly of ices such as water, ammonia and methane. Within these belts, five individual objects, Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris, are recognised to be large enough to have been rounded by their own gravity, and are thus termed dwarf planets. The hypothetical Oort cloud, which acts as the source for long-period comets, may also exist at a distance roughly a thousand times beyond these regions.

Within the Solar System, various populations of small bodies, such as comets, centaurs and interplanetary dust, freely travel between these regions, while the solar wind, a flow of plasma from the Sun, creates a bubble in the interstellar medium known as the heliosphere, which extends out to the middle of the scattered disc.

Six of the planets and three of the dwarf planets are orbited by natural satellites, usually termed "moons" after Earth's Moon. Each of the outer planets is encircled by planetary rings of dust and other particles.

Your re-written version mentions: gravity (although not the Sun's); hints at the plane of the ecliptic; nearly circular orbits (but fails to name them as ellipses); the Heliosphere; the solar wind; and the interstellar medium. Note I said your version mentions..., and not explains... . Your version took three long, overly detailed paragraphs (and an orphaned paragraph/sentence) to fail to mention quite a lot of important stuff about the solar system as an entity, while listing many objects and listing some of their attributes. You also manage to throw in the age and formation from a giant molecular cloud - wrong place for that. The lead should stick to what the solar system is, not what it used to be - that's for later. I don't hate your re-write, I just think it's no good as a lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note re: previous discussions: For previous discussions relating to these issues, please see:

(and in fact most of Archive Three from "List In Order From Sun" on down.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the lead on Solar System, with an expanded version of the one above. It is far better than anything there before I hope you agree. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrong in a few places; most notably that outer space begins at the heliopause. Outer space begins outside the atmosphere. The lead is also far too Earth-centric. Earth is mentioned three times in the lead, but the largest objects in the Solar System other than the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn, are only mentioned in the lists. The lead fails to adequately explain what a dwarf planet is and why Pluto was demoted. You also forgot the note you removed. Serendipodous 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you are not worth argueing with, you misrepresent what my lead says, then you use that misrepresentation to critisise what I actually wrote. Shame on you.
The "too Earth-centric" criticism" {lacks intellectual rigour}. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I strongly advise you to choose the words carefully. I also advise you to refactor or retract the last comment. Ruslik (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (OK - HarryAlffa)[reply]

Comment First, per the observations of several other editors, we should centralize this discussion at Talk:Solar System. Second, I have restored yesterday's version, and would ask that any changes to the lead be hashed out on a talk page first, and only applied after consensus is reached. Solar System is a core article, one of the most important ones in the "Astronomy" section, and we cannot have the lead going back-and-forth. Fair enough? (I was going to post a copy of the revised version here, but instead thought you could decide which revised version you wanted to start from.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No not fair at all. You and your Cabal will simply dig your heals in and call consensus when the Cabal says it's consensus. I simply do not trust you to operate in good faith. You implicitly acknowledge that the lead is a failure by asking for changes to be hashed out, unless this is just a ruse. All the changes User:Serendipodous has made simply make it fit my original criticisms! My version does not fail by the standards I listed, which you implicitly acknowledge, so I will restore that version as it MUST be a better starting point. Fair enough? Cheers. Just as I was writing this look what User:Serendipodous wrote below! Big surprise - he agrees with Ckatz! HarryAlffa (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can close this now. Serendipodous 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is this closed? There seem to be ongoing discussions. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz Cabal: Serendipodous & ASHill These two or three users have been responsible for the terrible state of the lead here[2], from at least as far back as last September, and even much earlier[3].

None of these meets Wikipedia:Lead_section, which begs the question why it was EVER a FA. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz & Serendipodous should stand back They have demonstrated an inability to write a lead which conforms to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section

Including Serendipodous [4] latest re-write.

They should therefore stand back and allow someone who clearly CAN write, to write. I'd written a lead which does conform, but it was reverted. I've tried, I really have, but the Solar System article really should be removed as a Featured Article. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, your lead doesn't conform to WP:LEDE either. What's the need for the large text size of "Terrestrial planet" and "Gas giant" and why are the planets still written in a list-like manner? Also, why does your version present the Solar System in a geocentric manner? Why is it overly simplistic? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Ignore my version of the lead. Concentrate on the current version. That fails the WP:Lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Problems If you were going to write an article about St Pauls Cathedreal, you would not simply list and describe, in detail, the different types of building blocks it used. You would give an overall descriptive view of the structure, then get down to details. The solar system article simply lists and describes the building blocks of the solar system, it does not give an overall view of the entity which is the solar system.

It must therefore fail the Featured Article test. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) comment to Ckatz & Serendipodous should stand back

Continued I do not agree with HarryAlffa's lead, it does not conform to WP:LEAD because it is not an introduction to the Solar System, it is instead an introduction to Earth's location in space. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The Earth provides context for the reader. Read the WP:Lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being dismissive, if you can't accept criticism, you should stop providing it. You need to read WP:LEAD, since your lead doesn't conform to it. The article your lead introduces is not Solar System, it is Earth's location in space. You don't provide context, you bias the article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must be some sort of genius! How else could I manage, Earth's location in space but, don't provide context, then bias the whole article with this amazing, 4 paragraph or so lead? I'll be dismissive if I think it appropriate. I've looked at your comments on my lead, given them careful thought, had a chuckle, and have dismissed them. We must agree to disagree. Anyway, it is the current lead which is the real concern. I think it is very poor, and does not conform with the points the WP:Lead asks a lead to, which I've elucidated on. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The version of the lead I just read in the article does appear to meet WP:LEAD. It unambiguously defines the topic then briefly describes its major characteristics with the appropriate relative emphasis (focusing on the Sun rather than Earth). Jay32183 (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually read the WP:LEAD where it says
   * briefly summarize the most important points covered
   * more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible
   * avoid ... and over-specific descriptions

It does not say 

   * briefly summarize every single constituent
   * more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be as
densely packed with detail as possible
   * aim for ... and over-specific descriptions

The current version[5] has pretty much taken; 

Solar System
Ingredients:Sun, terrestrial planets(Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars), 
gas giants(Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), asteroid belt,
Kuiper belt(scattered disc, water, ammonia, methane), dwarf planets(Ceres,
Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, Eris), Oort cloud, comets, centaurs,
interplanetary dust, moons, planetary rings of dust.

- which at least has the virtue of brevity, it has then been inflated with poor prose, with no differentiation of importance (Jupiter has as much prominence as comets), unless you count order of position in the text, in which case why is the ecliptic mentioned before the planets when it's such a small part (one sentence defines it) of the article? HarryAlffa (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have read WP:LEAD, which is why I feel this article does meet the criteria. The text is accessible, any 10 year old in public school from an English speaking country can read and understand the lead. It does briefly summarize the most important points covered in the rest of the article. Your third point doesn't make any sense as written. The Solar System is defined by the objects within it. Your cathedral comparison doesn't make sense because the cathedral is not defined by its building blocks; the ideas are not parallel. The lead reflects the way the rest of the article is written. It seems every attempt you've made to modify the lead as resulted in an inappropriate geocentric focus, over-simplification, and a lack of meaningful content. If that's what you're looking for you will never be satisfied with this article, because it will fail WP:LEAD that way. Jay32183 (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My third point doesn't make any sense? The third point is lifted directly from WP:Lead! "Accordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."
Look up summary in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
You clearly don't understand what a summary is: "A summary or recap is a shortened version of the original. The main purpose of such a simplification is to highlight the major points from the genuine (much longer) subject, e.g. a text, a film or an event. The target is to help the audience get the gist in a short period of time."
A summary is not listing, and describing (no matter how briefly) every component. This is exactly what the current lead does. It therefore fails.
You have misunderstood what is meant by accessible in WP:Lead; "It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) Accordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."
You've misunderstood "defined" here. The solar system can be described in terms of its components, but if you take away a few grains of orbiting dust, you do not change the "definition" of solar system, which "consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity". Even removing a planet doesn't change this definition.
Now that you understand what a definition is, you can forget about it while you remember that the aim is description. Now re-read the next, cathedral-paragraph, and understand why it is a good analogy. Also remember that this is a criticism of the whole article - which fails as a whole, and must be restructured.
If you were going to write an article about St Pauls Cathedreal, you would not simply list and describe, in detail, the different types of building blocks it used. You would give an overall descriptive view of the structure, then get down to details. The solar system article simply lists and describes the building blocks of the solar system, it does not give an overall view of the entity which is the solar system.
The geo-centric description of my own lead completely misrepresents it. Shame on you. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully understand WP:LEAD. This article meets it. And why did you repeat the cathedral example after I pointed out how meaningless it is. The Solar System is in fact defined by the celestial bodies that compose it, it is not a region of space that happens to contain stuff, it is not an individual entity. The lead summarizes the article. The only thing I don't understand is the problem you have with this article. Every attempt you've made to change it has made things worse. You're version is geocentric, listy, overly simplified, lacking detail, and boring. You're attempting a lot of small paragraphs rather than a couple meaty ones. If you don't get it after hearing the review from so many others, then I'll just have to come out and say it. You are a bad writer. Jay32183 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definition: "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity". If all you want is a definition then you can stop. The Solar System is an entity. How else could we prefix it with the definite article? If you don't understand this, then it is not my problem. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Solar System is not an entity, it is a collection of stuff. Astronomers intentionally use a fuzzy definition because it is not an entity. It certainly is your problem, as you are the only one getting this wrong. The definition in the opening sentence is correct. Listing the celestial bodies isn't like listing the bricks in a building, it's like listing the members of a band. Jay32183 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A collection of stuff is a Set. A set is an entity. How else could we prefix it with the definite article? What fuzzy definition do astronomers use? Is it different from the exact one we use in the article? You are saying both that: "The definition in the opening sentence is correct", and : "Astronomers use a fuzzy definition". Which one should we use in the article? It's sounding like you have a problem. A band analogy? OK, I'll run with that. If the drummer leaves the band, next day you can say the drummer has left the band, because the band still exists. The drummer isn't part of the definition of the band, just a member of it. Get it? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A set is not an entity; an entity is one thing. The fuzzy definition astronomers use is the exact one that appears in the article. The drummer leaving the band is analogous to a comet leaving the solar system. A comet with a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit is only part of the solar system temporarily. However, not including it while it is in the solar system is incorrect, as it is bound to the Sun by gravity. The Sun is the core entity of the set that is the Solar System. Your version of the article mentions not only the Earth, but the Moon, by name in the opening sentence as if they are more important than other objects. Your "synopsis" continues to with the bad example you've set in your lead, being overly simplified, listy, and stubby. It was already deleted at AFD and your userspace isn't addressing the problems brought up there. It's time for you to give up. I know you think you're the only one who gets it, but really you're the only one who doesn't. Jay32183 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Set (mathematics), A set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. There is no fuzzy definition (if there is quote it for us), there is an exact intensional definition, "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity". If you don't accept this then you'd better go and "correct" the Set (mathematics) and Intensional definition pages. Get back to me when you have. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HarryAlffa only started this FAR to make a statement. The statement is made. The issue he raised has been resolved. Now all we're doing is arguing about semantics. Can we please close this FAR and move this discussion to the Solar System talk page where it belongs? Serendipodous 08:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the motion to close this FAR. Ruslik (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making is that this article is (no longer) up to standard as far as FAR is concerned. I hold it to be self evident that the article doesn't pass muster as far as the WP:Lead is concerned. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipodous, none of the issues I raised have been resolved. In fact before the FAR you, Ckatz & ASHill could, even would, not be persuaded that there was anything wrong with the lead as it was[6] before I raised this FAR. So you have just admitted: the lead before was "wrong"; by extension that my reasoning was sound. The same reasoning raises the same issues with the current lead, ipso facto the current lead is also "wrong". Unless your line about issues being resolved was put there so it looks like you're being reasonable. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System, August 2008. The lead which inspired "May contain nuts"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_System&oldid=229261833

Ckatz, ASHill & Serendipodous wouldn't be persuaded there was anything wrong with it. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ruslik0, Kheider or Jay32183? They've all made exactly the same points I did when we first "met". Or are they part of the cabal too? Serendipodous 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you respond to the logical reasoning above please? HarryAlffa (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support closing this review, especially considering that the only person who has endorsed it is the one who opened it. Any issues that have been raised can be addressed on the article talk page, and no-one who has posted here (again, except for Harry) has supported the idea of delisting it. --Ckatzchatspy 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well turkeys don't vote for Christmas, so you were never going to agree that an article you spent so much time on fails WP:Lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice spin, "no-one has supported delisting it". The FAR is to bring it up to scratch, this was my only option to improve it. A couple of people have agreed with my points on the lead, do you interpret them as supporting a de-listing, or is my view that they are trying to improve the article the correct one? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is time to close this review. -- Kheider (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nishkid64

Said Of this version[7]

  • I agree with your points, ... the lead problems can easily be resolved ... - 20:16, 22 April 2009

And of this version[8]

  • Harry, your lead doesn't conform to WP:LEDE either. - 02:30, 27 April 2009

The problems with the lead weren't resolved and remain the same. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceranthor

Said of this version [9]

While I agree that the lead is problematic, ... 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead remains problematic. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

A reader can't find dwarf planets from the TOC.

Structure

Fails to convey the importance of the plane of the ecliptic to the solar system structure. A good image of this is wasted in the Terminology section below it.

Terminology

Why is there a section called Terminology at all? Why is it a sub-heading of Structure when much of the terminology has nothing to do with the solar system structure?

This section is a mis-mash. It defines the various regions of the system (which surely should be in the Structure section above it) then lists the components of different regions; planets, dwarf planets, small solar system bodies.

Then it gives the IAU definitions of planet and dwarf planet, and it totals and names them all.

It explains why pluto isn't a planet, and speculates about objects which may become dwarf planets.

It introduces the terms "small Solar System bodies" & "planetesimals", but doesn't define them, and only wikilinks "planetesimals".

Then it defines rock, gas, ice & volatiles while mixing melting points (wrong) and boiling points (correct) in doing so. It lists various ices and where they might be found.

This must surely be an example of how NOT to write for a FA.

HarryAlffa (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Harry, you introduced the "Terminology" section last September because you wanted to define gas, ice and rock, and you then argued over the contents for some time (including adding such lines as "Here we define those possibly confusing terms used in the rest of the article"). --Ckatzchatspy 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
False. My first contribution to Terminology was in August 2008 when I put some sub-headings in[10] to help navigate the mish-mash it was. This was rejected and it remains a mish-mash. I did define ices[11] 10 August 2008, then your Cabal unreasoningly removed ices, then rewrote it less beautifully, then included rock and gas. I think ASHill removed Terminology entirely, then in September I re-introduced it, and ... whatever.
Boring history over.
Having learned a little more about writing for Wikipedia, a section kind-of-like a Misc section is undesirable. I know how to re-write it without the Terminology section, and without loosing information, but the Cabal are completely unreceptive, so I'm having to simply point out the failings. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the time you spent trawling through past versions so you could take a swipe at me would have been better spent answering even one of the points I've raised.
Or was the swipe at me because you can find no logic to refute them? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Galactic context

Just so it's not all negative!

This section and the following Formation and evolution section are much more like it!

A pleasure to read! HarryAlffa (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:HarryAlffa, you have several times in this review accused others of being part of a "cabal" and made personal attacks on other editors (sample), about which you've been warned. You also don't appear to be willing to respect consensus. I also suggest it's time to close this review. And there's the matter of the fork which was deleted. Please refrain from using FAR as a battleground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has the fork which was deleted got to do with it? I put reasons why it should not be considered a fork, but didn't really expect it would survive. You seem to have thrown that in purely as a swipe at me. What was that about this not being a battleground? It seemed to me that three users (Ckatz, Sorendipodus, ASHill) acted as a cabal ... now it seems only in the past. One of whom was less than courteous at our first meeting, and things have not improved between us since. So you saw my lack of patience with him - and MUST also have seen that I withdrew the description of imbecilic of one of his opinions, but you chose to omit that. Is that exemplary - to pick out a withdrawn comment made in impatience, to vilify another? HarryAlffa (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little unsure what you mean by, "You don't appear to be willing to respect consensus". There were a couple of people who agreed with my original critique of the lead. I totally respect the right of anyone to hold an opinion. It does not mean that those opinions themselves must be respected - like extreme right-wing, left-wing and religious opinion. Are you saying because I am in disagreement with "the concensus" I don't respect it? HarryAlffa (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, Yannismarou. Could either of you offer any counter arguments to any of the criticisms I've made? For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text 

   # more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible
   # avoid ... over-specific descriptions

1. The first sentence of the lead, "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity,". I like that beginning, it's an excellent definition. But it has to go, maybe somewhere else in the article, but it has to go because it is not accessible, as defined in the WP:Lead - you really only understand it clearly if you know the subject already, which is why those who know will find it pleasing - as I do. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Just about every sentence gives over-specific descriptions, eg, "The four smaller inner planets; Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, also called the terrestrial planets, are primarily composed of rock and metal". HarryAlffa (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Since no edits are taking place to improve the article with regard to any of the points I've made, I propose now listing the Solar System article as a Featured article removal candidate. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CONS

Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

  • Featured article removal candidate No improvement. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONS seems to be the most widely misunderstood policy. Consensus is only possible if editors are civil to each other. Screaming "nonsense" and labeling other's comments "imbecilic" will not produce any new consensus. The comments of such editors are excluded from any discussion and have a zero weight. In my opinion, there is a consensus here that the article generally satisfies FA Criteria, and your insults mean nothing. What you are doing is called WP:forum shopping: when you failed to obtain what you wanted in the discussion on the talk page, you are moved it to another place. The quote above is actually from the paragraph that is specifically written to discourage forum shopping: Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is exactly what you trying to do now by actively canvassing other editors. Yes, you are violating WP:CANVASS by posting on the talk pages of many users, articles and projects. This disruption must stop. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really like this article, but on an objective note, it is pretty clear that the article could receive some more attention with regards to referencing; there are multiple paragraphs that lack any sort of referencing, although the information in them appears to be disputable (including those terms are defined). Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a citation for the tag you listed and clarified the paragraph. It would help if you placed citation tags on any other claims you felt needed referencing. Serendipodous 09:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Solar_System/archive1&oldid=1138477786"