I have worked on the article for the past month and I think now it is ready to become an FA. It is now GA and recently passed a peer review. Feedback and comments are welcome. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Support, I think the page looks good along with the correct imagerys and the lack of citation needed's is also good. The wording of the article seems informative so for now im going to show my support for it to be featured. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment There's a citation needed tag in the References section. Epbr123 (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I modified the note such that it won't require a reference. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And the same sort of citation issues we just covered in the planet FAC, so I won't detail those again here. The citations need cleanup, and I left edit summaries of other issues (for example, contact Brighterorange (talk·contribs) to fix the dashes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe I went through all of them. Let me know if I missed anything. Nergaal (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
SupportObject; prose needs work. "The IAU's initial draft proposal included not only Pluto, but its moon Charon, Eris and Ceres in the list of planets." Colloquial words/phrases like "end up", "guestimates", and "good cutoff" ought to be recast. "Very" is almost always a useless word; either eliminate it or be specific in magnitude. Make consistent the use or non-use of the serial comma. Make sure that the proper hyphens and dashes are used: hyphens are used in spelled-out fractions, ndashes go in number ranges, and mdashes mark explanatory notes—like this. Put between all numbers and abbreviated units (400 km). There's no need to italicize quotes or abbreviations like et al. --Spangineerws(háblame) 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe I solved these issues. Let me know if I missed anything. Nergaal (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks better, but I'm not confident that all of the style problems have been addressed (just found a missing comma). I'll keep checking. Also, I marked a few citation needed tags for you; overall it looks well referenced. Not far to go! --Spangineerws(háblame) 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Done with the tags. Anything else left to solve? Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The article uses British English, and in the British scientific literature, a spaced en-dash is more common than an unspaced em-dash for what you call "explanatory notes". This is a valid alternative in WP:DASHBluap (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments - The table of comments looks awkward where it is. Is the fourth paragraph of the article supposed to be part of the lede, or not? If not, it should be moved into a section. Imperial units are needed in parenthesis, and non-breaking spaces are needed between all units, like so (see in edit window). 160 km (100 mi). Quick question. Do all of the statements in the lede also appear later in the article? If not, they should be, since the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article. If not, then I don't think the references are needed up there (though keeping them there wouldn't be controversial). I quickly noticed the word guesstimate in TNO candidates, which should be changed. I didn't check the rest of the article, but it should be checked to make sure the writing is up to par. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know that guesstimates was a word. I am pretty sure it was a typo. I dealt with the table and with the lead (as per below). Nergaal (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose First, the lead is exsessively long. Second, the units need conversions. Finally, per Hurricanhink, The table of comments looks awkward where it is. JuliancoltonTalk 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply I feel that the paragraph talking about size limits for dwarf planets could be lost from the lead, and incorporated in the "Size and mass" section Bluap (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Moved that part. The lead now is 3 paragraphs. Dealt with the TOC. Nergaal (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked the FAC requirements again and there is no suggestion for imperial units. Am I wrong? Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support It looks to me that all of the issues have been addressed, and I believe it is very good now. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Article needs to be more thoroughly sourced. Seddon69 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I am really having a hard time understanding what exactly do you mean by this. It would be really helpful if you could be more specific and give a few examples. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There are paragraphs which aren't sourced and im having difficulty knowing which paragraphs are being sourced by what, for example. This section is a good example of what i mean. There are sentences which seem to not be sourced and the sources which are there dont cover certain aspects of whats written. I can find 9 instances where the sources cannot be easily identified, shall i list the 9? Seddon69 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You can go ahead and place  where you think it needs it. That yould be the easiest. Nergaal (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Has Seddon69 been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I see he has, several times, and there are still two cite tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Done those too. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment It would be nice if the sortable table (of planetary discriminants) would be able to take account of scientific notation. If this isn't possible, then I'd prefer the table to be non-sortable. Bluap (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried this page but there, the version of this table works fine . Wiki commons has a more features than en.wiki?Nergaal (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Nergaal, it looks slightly better, but the writing is still not up to professional standards. Also, I would still like conversion units; for example,
Empirical observations suggest that the lower limit may vary according to the composition and history of the object. For example, in the asteroid belt, Ceres, with a diameter of slightly more than 900 km
I am not that familiar with kilometers, so if you could put square miles or something similar in parentheses, it would improve the article. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
done this in the text but I left the tables like before (I think they would become too messy by adding miles too) Nergaal (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you give more examples of "not up to professional standards"? Thanks! By the way, is your vote still oppose or comment? Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Potential problems I've found:
The diameter of Ceres is in the prose as 900 km but in the table as 975 km. These should agree.
Is "terrestrial planet" a real term? It seems like it would only include earth, but in the prose (section Orbital dominance) it appears to refer to all the planets. Found it.
The quote by Brown ("it takes less force to make an ice ball round") isn't clear—less force than what?
Information is repeated inconsistently in "Size and mass" and "TNO candidates". Personally, I'd drop the dwarf planet counts from the section on "Size and mass", and leave them in "TNO candidates".
Reference 39 is missing a word (slightly larger? slightly smaller?)
Did Julio Ángel Fernández define "planetesimal" in his definition of dwarf planet? If so, it might be helpful to include that definition rather than just linking to the general article.
Once these are addressed I should be ready to support. --Spangineerws(háblame) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Went through all of them except the last one. I will clarify that part a bit later.Nergaal (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
About the last issue: his proposal was not about platesimals but about planetoids. I could not find his official proposal but I added instead two references that are more clear about that proposal. Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I re-added the unit conversion in the quote, along with the brackets. Also, I cut the quote by Brown (point 3 above), because I don't think it adds much. If the quote were an everyday analogy (like it's easier to make a round snowball than a round rock), then I'd say keep it, but it doesn't seem like it says anything other than ice bodies are less rigid and more easily made spherical by self-gravity. Reasonable? --Spangineerws(háblame) 04:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right. It was also unnecessarly informal. What about the other points? Are there any more unsolved comments? Nergaal (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) ps: I did not know the  notation is used for the unquoted units.