Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 UB313

2003 UB313 edit

A comprehensive article on a complex subject. It is not easy to write such thorough article on an astronomical object but editors of this article have done reasonably well, in my opinion. --BorgQueen 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this page since a few hours after 2003UB313 was discovered, and was thinking of nominating it here myself soon - however, I don't think it's quite ready yet. It has been subject to a lot of edits in the last few days following an announcement about HST observations, and I think it needs a thorough working over to ensure that the style is uniform, particularly with regard to citations (something I was planning to do myself some day very soon). The lead is also too long at the moment and there are also some display issues with images covering text on my screen. Worldtraveller 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but may be one or several inline citations are needed. Brandmeister 10:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pros:
extremely informative (complete that is). Really useful article.
I loved the comparative picture with UB313 with objects from Ceres to the moon, which is fairly informative on the object's size. A picture is more valuable than a thousand words.

But:

I would like a picture with the orbit of UB 313; it should have the year and distance in AU in the perihelion and the aphelion of the orbit, for information purposes; the current position would also be nice. The current picture is not that informative, it just presents the current position of the object in relation to the orbit of the other planets, it is rather cool, but not great. One like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pluto_system.jpg (I'm talking about the style of the pic, not about the moon).
Subsections would be nice, not in the external links, but isolating the article's information more properly.
For what I've read it (currently) does not have the serious issues of the Pluto article, with excessive discussion on the object status and little focus on the object itself.

The bad of this article (The UB 313 one) is its style. It is currently an excellent warehouse full information. It has very good and useful references, so it does not need more inline citations or any other things like that. But I think that the information should be kept in one piece. So, I'm neutral for now. --Pedro 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - no inline citations, too many external links embedded in article hampering readability. Lead is too long per WP:LEAD. Other than that, it is okay- I especially like the animation. AndyZ 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - lead is way too long, distracting image at left, and cites (external links) need to be done better. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]