Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solar eclipse

Solar eclipse

I nominated this article because solar eclipses have been getting a great deal of Wikipedia attention since last month's eclipse. If there should be an eclipse-related featured article, it should of course be this one. And I do believe that solar eclipses deserve one, because as the article itself says A total solar eclipse is considered by many to be the most spectacular natural phenomenon that one can observe. I'm committed to resolve objections brought forward, so please be bold. Nick Mks 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From taking a brief glance, I notice you'll need to expand the introduction to ~2-5 paragraphs, and you'll need to cite sources. You appear to recognise that the article is not currently FA quality but are willing to bring it to that quality. We have a page specifically for that: Wikipedia:Peer review. Joe D (t) 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding the sentence you quote: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. Joe D (t) 19:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: This seems informative, but it has no specific reference section, which should at least be linked to some inline cites for the most pertinent facts. There are also too many short sections. The lead needs to be longer and more explanatory of the page as a whole. Regarding sections: "Eye damage mechanism" and "Viewing totality during total eclipses" I don't know enough to doubt the truth of the statements in those paragraphs, but I would like to see some proof in the form of a specific references - until then my advice is - "don't try this at home kids" Giano | talk 19:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Problems have been addressed. Giano | talk 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object The article needs a lot more sources. joturn e r 05:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Status update: I have expanded the introduction, added references and merged or expanded short paragraphs as asked. I have also added some content and a few relevant pictures. Nick Mks 19:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The series of images under Observing a Solar Eclipse are spaced strangely. Maybe you can fix it for a better effect? --Osbus 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I tried, but that's a result of the picture size. I'm not a specialist on that. Nick Mks 07:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fixed it, it looks better now. --Osbus 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Seems as though problems have been taken care of. Good job! Chuck 03:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no problems with this article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support, if the article does not cause a total eclipse of the heart when viewed. Otherwise nice article. I am satisfied with the changes that have been made. --Shawn 17:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The recent changes have improved it considerably. --Portnadler 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMinor object. Following points should be addressed: 1) at least one photo has no caption 2) too much bolding in the article, where MoS recommends that ilinks or italic should be used 3) see also is long, consider incorporating those links into main article 4) while the article has an ok number of references (24 footnotes), some sections are very lightly (or not at all) referenced, for example 'Viewing totality during total eclipses', 'Path of an eclipse', 'Final totality', 'Solar eclipse before sunrise or after sunset' and 'Simultaneous occurrence of eclipses and transits' have no inline citations at all and for all we know can be completly fictional.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input. Your first three comments have been taken care of, more references will be added soon. Nick Mks 09:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Nick Mks 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good job. I support now, but you may want to add a few more inline cits to the light-cit sections such as 'Types of solar eclipses' and 'Geometry of an eclipse', which are quite long but have only one ref - can we assume that the entire section is based on those single refs?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually you can, as those parts contain quite basic stuff that all sources mention and agree upon. But I'll add some more. Nick Mks 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Voila. Nick Mks 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]