Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Comet Hale-Bopp

Comet Hale-Bopp

Probably the most widely-observed comet in history, and I hope its article does it some justice. I've worked substantially on it over the last several months. I think it is comprehensive and interesting, and so I'm nominating this for featured status. Worldtraveller 14:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting read. Zerbey 21:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Most hearty support. Denni☯ 03:00, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Support, I learned a lot from this article. But isn't Halley's Comet the most observed comet? I would think that at least a mention of this comet would be useful. Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the comment! I've added a mention of Halley in the final paragraph - In terms of total numbers Hale Bopp may have been seen by more people than have ever seen Halley throughout history, due to population growth (although I haven't made quite so bold a statement in the article!), and definitely way way more in numbers and in terms of proportion of the global population than saw Halley in 1986. Worldtraveller 12:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I do not dare to object an article such as this for so futile reasons, but the lead section could be improved; right now it uses a lot of journalistic-style terms at the limit of POV and feels like it does not want to give exact figures and is a bit uncertain about the subject. Consider "discovered at an enormous distance from the sun", "one of the most spectacular", "probably the most widely-observed"... Otherwise, 1st class article. Phils 12:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that comment, I agree with your sentiments and have adjusted the intro and some other bits accordingly. I left 'probably the most widely-observed' because there's really no way of saying so for sure but it has been speculated by several authoritative sources so seems worth mentioning, I think. Worldtraveller 13:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Comet Hyakutake was better, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very well done. I made a few fixes for readability so please check to make sure it did in fact leave the facts stated correctly. I also formatted one of the references properly as at Wikipedia:Cite sources, but the Hale, A., & Bopp one needs to be done correctly too. It lacks a title it seems. - Taxman 22:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments and changes to the article - I just re-reworded one bit slightly for hopefully greater clarity. I am not sure the Hale & Bopp ref has a title, but IAUCs are only available online to subscribers so can't check at the moment. Will check from a university machine shortly. Worldtraveller 22:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good job. Phils 15:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comments: Regarding its forma designation, there is no link to any designation system of any kind, please make one so that the reader read more about this naming scheme (whatever it is). The passage of Hale-Bopp was notable also for inciting a degree of comet panic not seen for decades. Comet panic? Is this some astology-jargon?;) How about just panic, perhaps it's well known term (I have no idea). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:20, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  • OK, I rearranged the text a tiny bit to avoid the impression of using astrology jargon! And I've linked to an article about astronomical naming conventions. Worldtraveller 17:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Those were the only things I found immitately wrong with the article, change to support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:45, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
• Support one of the better article nominated, very nice presentation, balance of content and and photos. Good work! Vaoverland 01:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Joshuaschroeder 05:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Trilobite (Talk) 07:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Lommer | ^talk 00:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)