After reading this article, I was surprised to see the little FA star in the corner. Other than a pervading dullness of prose, the main problem is that the article is woefully lacking in inline cites and other references. The more specific scientific details are sourced (though not all of them), but a lot of the historical background, claims about visibility, claims that it was "more impressive" than Hale-Bopp, etc. are without any sources at all. I have noticed recent FA nominees get torn up because they lacked abundant sources, so I feel like an article like this (promoted in March 2005) needs to get put through the wringer again. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dmz5's assessment on the references. I would expect every paragraph to contain at least one inline reference. The references also need to be cleaned up; some references are included as footnotes, whereas others are included as links in the text. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the above points, this does not meet featured article criteria in my opinion. The whole article could use a copyedit. Some of the headings (The comet passes the Earth, Perihelion and afterwards) sound strange and are rather unscientific. It also seems very short and brief for a FA. I'm sure there is a lot more info out there that could be found and added to the article with appropriate references. --Nebular110 13:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that Comet Hale-Bopp is also a featured article (promoted in Feb 05) and has fewer references (eight) than Hyakutake (eleven) for a longer article. The reference styly is not consistent throughout the article either. Someone may want to think about a featured article review for Hale-Bopp in order to address similar concerns. --Nebular110 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be best to wait until this article is addressed, so as not to overwhelm the involved Projects with two FARs at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The article could definitely need some improvement; I'll attempt to look at it soon, but I'm not sure how far I'll get. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I gave up writing articles a while ago because of severe dissatisfaction with the lack of standards in Wikipedia, but on having a look at what was happening I saw this review, and as I wouldn't like to see one of my articles defeatured I may do a bit of work on it. However, I have to say that the comments left here are simply too vague to address in any way, apart from the referencing. As far as that goes, most of the basic facts about the comet can be found in the first reference listed, a review article from the JBAA. I don't see the point in putting a superscript  after every sentence that can be verified in that article, and it doesn't seem to me it would add anything that isn't already there. The sentence about comparisons with Hale-Bopp could do with a cite, I know where I got it from and it's a shame I didn't reference it at the time, but it's an issue of Sky & Telescope with a lengthy article about the two comets and I'll track it down.
So, other concerns:
pervading dullness of prose - examples?
whole article could use a copyedit - give some examples of what needs copyediting.
there is a lot more info out there that could be found and added - such as?
seems very short and brief for a FA - there is a mania for writing 60kb articles that almost no-one is ever going to read all of. I've never believed that length is something to strive for - comprehensiveness is something to strive for, and conciseness at the same time. If an article is concise yet comprehensive then I believe it's an excellent article. If you just want more verbosity I won't give you that, but if you think the article is not comprehensive, and if you can tell me what you think is missing, then maybe I can do something about that.
Basically I would need a lot more of an indication of what anyone thinks is wrong with this article before I can do any work on it. Worldtraveller 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Some copy edit examples from the intro:
"It was dubbed The Great Comet of 1996, and was one of the closest cometary approaches to the Earth in the previous 200 years, resulting in the comet appearing very bright in the night sky and being seen by a large number of people around the world." "Comet" and "cometary approach" have been accidentally conflated here, and the last clause is wordy. Something like: "It was dubbed The Great Comet of 1996, and its approach was one of the closest in the previous 200 years; the comet appeared very bright in the night sky and was widely seen around the world."
"Most surprising to cometary scientists was the discovery of X-ray emission from the comet, the first time a comet had been found to be emitting X-rays." Redundant. Try: "Most surprising to cometary scientists was the first discovery of X-ray emission from a comet."
Lots of time with this one, and I think it's a fine article as it stands. I would suggest looking for redundant clauses like those above, to begin with. Marskell 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Prose is fairly good, but could be better:
...was the discovery of X-ray emission from the comet, the first time a comet had been found to be emitting X-rays. - surely that can phrased more efficiently.
scientists realised that the comet was going to pass very close to the Earth on 25 March, just 0.1 AU away - the order makes the 0.1AU seem related to the 25 March.
As Comet Hale-Bopp was already being discussed as a possible "great comet", it took a while for the astronomical community to realise that Hyakutake too might become spectacular; its close approach to Earth meant it was very likely to become a great comet. - generally messy, repetition of phrases, awkward use of "too"
Could do with a copyedit for the occasional clumsy phrase. Trebor 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Suggested FA criteria concerns are sourcing (1c), and prose (1a).Marskell 09:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I'll have a go at this, if no one else does. Marskell 09:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I'll help Marskell for 1c, but leave 1a for the prose expert. — Indon (reply) — 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Definite wordiness in going over it further. I'll take a pass at 1a and then someone else can. Can you ref further Indon? Marskell 13:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Done, at best I could find sources. Some sections were written completely from one source that it might not be a good idea to fill them in with the same citation numbers. Now, any other citation requests still needed? — Indon (reply) — 10:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Indon, the first para of "Spacecraft passes through the tail" could use a source. The subsequent studies are sourced, but not the first. The prose has received one going over but needs at least two more. Still some days left. Marskell 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Cited. I ran through the article one more time and found other uncited statements and opinions (I put tags for myself there). I'm trying to find the sources. Done, article is now well-cited. — Indon (reply) — 12:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep — prose needs another pass by a fresh editor. — Deckiller 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just done a quick run-through, rewording limited parts of the prose. Some of the awkward phrases have been removed or reworded, but it still could do with another look over. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Marskell and Indon, for getting this into better shape. I have been slightly distracted over the last few days and haven't been able to contribute as I'd hoped. However, I'm going to give the article a thorough read through in the next day or so. I hope that will iron out any remaining problems. Worldtraveller 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep — prose is passable after runthroughs by four editors. — Deckiller 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.