Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ceres (dwarf planet)

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.

Ceres (dwarf planet)[edit]

This GA article has been improved greatly over the past months and I believe it is a FA-class article now. It is also a part of the featured topic 'Solar System'. Nergaal (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also could be pruned a bit. What is the distinction between notes and references in this article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Mostly well-written. But "center" and "harbour"? Which is it to be: AmEng or BrEng? "The element ..." para—why not merge it with the previous to avoid a stub? Piazzi's Book image: tiny and makes the caption look very awkward. I fully support not using our stupid, dysfunctional autoformatting system, but can you not use it consistently, and use consistent formatting, not a combination? I don't care which formatting is used. Lovely and easy to read when black and not splash-blue. Please use a minus sign (or en dash) for a minus sign: no hyphens for this. En dashes for ranges: I see a few. Space equals signs on both sides. This is all in MOS. Last image: caption not a full sentence, so no final period. See MOS on that. Tony (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC) PS Audit your references, please. I see problems like "Space Daily", which is the name of linked page, but where are the publishers (Agence Presse France and UPI?, right down the bottom?). Again, format the dates consistently—they're a mess. "Et al" usually ends in a period. Tony (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've addressed most of Tony's listed comments (not sure what he wanted as far as formatting, and I'm pretty sure the citation he mentions is actually by SpaceDaily (it's listed as being written by staff writers). Serendi^podous 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having seen this Voyager photo of Uranus recently, I found the photo of Ceres (the one in the information box) surprisingly similar. The image page states that the surface, on average, absorbs 91% of sunlight, so I'd expect it to be almost black in a photograph. Can we get a caption in the article to tell users about the processing? I'm not arguing against the processing, nor am I advocating getting a photograph showing it as a black ball; all I'm saying is that the processing needs some explanation, in the article, close to the photo (preferably as a caption). Also, is the color real or false? Fg2 (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the caption. However I disagree that it should look like a black ball without contrast enhancement. It reflects 9%, which significantly more than 0% of empty space. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the caption and for correcting me about Ceres' not looking black. Fg2 (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - much improved from when I first looked a few months ago. Only query is " 4 ± 5°." - is this right? Looks odd that the second number is larger than the first. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with "about 3°". Ruslik (talk) 07:22, 10 December 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.