 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Wheelers book cover.jpg edit
Image:Wheelers book cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The Role of Jupiter in the Solar System edit
Possible to infer support for "Jupiter also pulls many objects from the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud" at 1 or the (regretably unavailable) text of 2, but like 3 most talk about diverting objects original send inward by nearby passing stars. 4 is the best link I have found. 4 mentions "it is believed they [Halley-family Comets] were long-period comets that were captured by the gravity of the giant planets and sent into the inner Solar System." -- Waveclaw (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Detail edit
I loved this book, but i dont see justification for the details here. Detailed book descriptions here should be based on commentary from sources other than the book itself. This article doesnt have any sources for it, besides the text itself. I know its notable, because its by two notable authors and has a decent publication history, but it reads a little bit more like a fan appreciation page. Now, i would argue this book DESERVES more attention, primarily for its ideas, but that doesnt mean it HAS that attention. I will try to find the reviews of the book, or any notable discussions of the ideas found in it. I think we need to distinguish between factual scientific ideas used in the book, and scientifically sound speculation. If we want to present arguments in support of the authors speculations, we must use OTHER PEOPLES research, not ours.(Mercurywoodrose, AKA "Mr. Spoilsport")66.80.6.163 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)