Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Extrasolar planet

Extrasolar planet edit

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Extrasolar planet/archive1

Self-nomination. This article recently failed as a FAC and I am now renominating it. All the problems that were pointed out after the last nomination have now been fixed. Further substantial improvements have been made in the article as well. I have been one of the people to edit the article since the last nomination failed, and in my opinion, it now amply satisfies all featured-article criteria. Kevin Nelson 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Object. "Notable extrasolar planets" section needs changing from a bullet list into proper prose as flowing paragraphs. Footnote size is non-standard, see Belton_House#Notes for how it should be done. Everything else seems OK. — Wackymacs 11:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed the concern around "Notable extrasolar planets" by breaking it into two lead paragraphs about the first two major milestones and then a list that's a bit easier to scan through and grasp, of the rest of the important discoveries by year and planet name. -Harmil 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've noticed some of the footnotes do not follow the proper citation style using templates, so these need to be fixed. I've just noticed the See also section is a bit too long, can you remove some links from there? — Wackymacs 07:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only footnotes I've seen with improper citation style are those that are just URLs with no access date. Are there any others you find to be improper? Also, I have now further trimmed the "See also" section. Kevin Nelson 08:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - From quickly looking... Footnotes 14, 16, 35 are not formatted with their page titles, authors, site name, access date, etc. (I am sure one or two of those apply to at least every link used in those footnotes). — Wackymacs 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the article needs a few more tweaks before getting the FA status:

The "See also" section seems to me huge. Are all these links necessary? Can we have some of them incorporated in the main article?
The "Notable extrasolar planets" section is now prose, but with some stubby paragraphs consisting of just one sentence. One-sentence paragraphs are also present in other sections.

I think these things need fixing before FA status is awarded.--Yannismarou 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Certainly some things in the "See also" section could be deleted, but nothing really stands out as especially deserving of deletion. I have to say that its length doesn't strike me as all that unreasonable. I fixed several stubby one-paragraph sentences. Two remain, which I think are justifiable in that they come at the end of introductory text within a section, and serve to introduce the subsections that follow. Kevin Nelson 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~Can't most of the items in the "See also" section be worked into the prose as wikilinks?~~--Paul 10:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done some of that. The "See also" section has been trimmed by a decent amount. Kevin Nelson 04:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a few concerns about the article:

~~The definition excludes orphaned planets that have been ejected from the star, as well as planets that formed by other means.[1]~~
~~I couldn't find any discussion of the suspected connection between a star's metallicity and the presence of planets. [2] [3]~~
There's no mention of such proposed detection methods as starshade technique in the New Worlds Observer.[4][5]]Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph in the lead about these "orphaned planets" (aka interstellar planets, aka rogue planets, aka free-floating planets). In short, I would prefer that this article not discuss such objects, for the following reasons: 1) They are outside the IAU's definition of "planet" 2) There is already a separate Wikipedia article about them 3) They remain a controversial subject in the astronomical community 4) Their relation to more ordinary planets is highly uncertain.
I added a paragraph about the metallicity connection.
Since length of the article is a concern, I would prefer not to add proposed detection methods like the starshade technique that are still very far from being put into practice. Several such methods have been proposed, and it's not clear where to draw the line. Kevin Nelson 08:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —

If the article length is becoming a concern then perhaps consideration should be given to creating a daughter article on the topic of detecting extrasolar planets.
The Category:Dark matter should probably be removed since there is no mention of the topic on the page.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - suggestions were fixed, unbelievably great article! NCurse _work 08:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support - Strong article when submitted & author has been very responsive to comments & suggestions. Well-writte, comprehensive & well-referenced. --Paul 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wackymacs has a point about the references, the notes do need some work. I saw a few problems just now & fixed them as examples of what needs to be done to clean things up.--Paul 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notes/Refs seem to be fixed now.--Paul 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although the nature of the article gives me some concerns: as more telescopes are deployed and/or more techniques to discover planets are put into practice this article - if not constantly followed by a editor - might become outdated. // Duccio (write me) 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I was originally going to re-nominate this article because it has been improved since when I first nominated it. There might be a few changes that need to be made overall (with the citations etc.) but it's pretty much FA at this point Latitude0116 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]