Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solar System/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. 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.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

You may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solar System/archive1, see here for sort of old FAC archive errors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Solar System

This article appears to meet all the featured article criteria. Atomic1609 17:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support This article is very complete and offers all of the following:
  
  • Nice, Detailed Images
  • Very Nice Introduction
  • Contains a Brief Amount of Information on Every Planet

Looks Nice! Eric 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Overall a good article. Couple of points.
  • The TOC is pretty big. Perhaps you could merge some sections together? You remove the planet subsections from "Inner planets" and "Outer planets".
  • Excessive bolding. Please remove the bolding format from links. Once this is addressed, I'll support it. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support — Overall it's good; a nice, summary-style article on the system. But I'm still of the opinion that too much text is spent on the outer planetary bodies Pluto and Eris. (Compare, for example, to the meager single paragraph spent on Jupiter, which is a far more important planet in terms of the system's evolution.) Still I can live with that. However I would like to see the lead section include a definition of "solar", which is currently only mentioned down in the "Extrasolar systems" section. — RJH (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Revised. Pluto is longer mainly because of the uncertainty over Charon's status. The issue of "Solar" is still not settled; there is, at the moment, no officially sanctioned generic term for "solar system", and in truth I would prefer if that paragraph in extrasolar systems wasn't there. Serendipodous 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Considering the scope of the topic, I find this a very impressive article -- it seems to cover things in reasonable depth without being overly lengthy, instead pointing toward appropriate daughter articles. Nicely referenced, too. Shimeru 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Serendipodous has done a great job revising (and re-revising) this article, and it really shows. One issue, though - removing the subsection headings makes it a LOT harder to find information quickly, and (IMHO) weakens the layout. I think it would be better to explore other options for reducing the size of the TOC. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The two illustrations in "Planets, dwarf planets, and small solar system bodies" are redundant. Also, including the astronomical symbols in the intro is distracting. They should be moved to their respective planet sections. Kaldari 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the use of astronomical symbols in the lead. They should stay, but maybe Ceres doesn't need an astronomical symbol in the lead.-BiancaOfHell 05:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The astronomical symbols cause a problem in my browser window; the line-wrapping separates the paren from the symbol. I don't know how this can be fixed. --Ideogram 08:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Web references should have retrieval dates, and journal references should be cited using {{cite journal}} and news references using {{cite news}}.--Rmky87 05:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment And all books need page number citations.--Rmky87 15:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It was great to read an up-to-date article on the Solar system. I have one suggestion, that a Main article be listed under the section 'Layout and structure' that would detail how you yourself, as a citizen of the planet, can observe and verify certain facts about the solar system by looking up at the sky. There must be small articles all over Wikipedia that make up such an article. It's one of the first things a person will want to do after they've read this article. What can I see when I look up at the sky? What kind of proofs can I make about the solar system by looking up at the sky. It doesn't have to be complete, but a beginning for others to finish. Overall, this article is a really important contribution to Wikipedia.-BiancaOfHell 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: In the first sentence, couldn't you use another word than "retinue"? Until five minutes ago, I had no idea that word existed. I know this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, but I think I am not the only one who would have to reach for a dictionary. Thanks, Pruneau^talk 01:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The word seems quite suitable to me. I'd hate to see Wikipedia have a requirement for all articles to use words that everybody knows. Reading these pages can present a good opportunity to expand your vocabulary. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object This article is not well organized and contains digressions into details of lesser importance. Examples:
  • 2006 IAU decision on Pluto does not belong in the lead.
  • Duplicated information about Kepler's laws ("Layout and structure" section, paras 4 and 5).
  • Final para of "Layout and structure" section seems to exist only to counter a "common misconception".
  • "Formation" section, Stardust/Comet Wild 2 para is excessive detail.
  • "Sun" section, "The vast majority of stars are dim red dwarfs ..." excessive detail of limited relevance.

Overall there is a lot of repetition and there needs to be more focus on important areas instead of keeping everything interesting that was contributed to the article. It also needs a good copyedit but that can come later. --Ideogram 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No links except "Solar System" should be bolded. This is clearly the result of copying and pasting from daughter articles. --Ideogram 13:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts: I would keep the overall structure of the article tightly bound to the physical structure of the Solar System. "Galactic context" needs to be abbreviated. The discussion of "Extrasolar systems" seems tangential. The history of "Discovery and exploration" belongs in another article. "Planets, dwarf planets, and small solar system bodies" consists of definitions and does not deserve its own section. --Ideogram 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed most of your specific objections, though I'm iffy on the irrellevance of the Red Dwarf mention; a grand statement like "stars dimmer than the Sun are common" could do with some backup, though it doesn't necessarily need it. I wouldn't mind seeing the final paragraph in Layout and Structure shortened or merged with another paragraph, but some mention of the increasing distances between the planets should be retained. As regards your more general objections, "Extrasolar systems" could probably be shortened and merged with "Galactic context," but some mention on how recent extrasolar discoveries reflect on our own solar system should remain, I think. I myself have debated removing the "Discovery and exploration" section, and, to my surprise, those who responded said no. The "Planets, Dwarf Planets and Small Solar system bodies" section was the end result of a compromise following a particularly bitter and protracted edit war. Actually, "stalemate" is a better word; the guy never conceded defeat, and I am certain that were that section removed, a similar edit war would start up again. If you feel this article doesn't need it, that's OK with me, but I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole :-) Serendipodous 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that it's necessary to even say "stars dimmer than the Sun are common". The comments on how extrasolar systems reflect on our own are too tenuous and speculative; as the text itself notes, they could just be a sampling error. I realize the "Discovery and exploration" question is really a content dispute, but I feel very strongly that the history of exploration of the Solar System does not belong here. I don't see any problem with mentioning the definition of "Planets, dwarf planets, and small solar system bodies", I just think it makes no sense to put it in its own section. Good work so far. --Ideogram 11:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A question for Ideogram: why do you feel so strongly about removing the exploration section? Is it the length of the section, or the fact it is there that bothers you? It would seem to me that a natural part of presenting what we know about the Solar System would include outlining how we figured it out. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't agree that what we know belongs with how we figured it out. The subject of an article needs to be summarizable in one sentence, without the use of "and". The structure of the Solar System and how we figured it out does not qualify. These are two subjects; "The structure of the Solar System", and "How we figured out the structure of the Solar System". --Ideogram 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that debating the structure of an article gets in the way of the best writing being done by an individual. Serendipodous has written an excellent article, and if some of his writing is moved off into other articles it's still an individual effort. There are some things committees are better at doing, like determining structure, and other work best left largely to individuals such as the writing. All that has to be done is highlight the articles that explain how the layout of the Solar System was discovered. Those articles could do with a lot more depth to begin with. -BiancaOfHell 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would say the overall structure is the most important thing that needs to be done by an individual. A house without an architect is just a pile of bricks; an article without someone in charge of structure is just a pile of facts. --Ideogram 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, what overall structure? The overall structure of Wikipedia, the overall structure of the topic, the subject, the article? It's all debatable, but the individual/committee make their best contributions at different places and in different time frames. Often an article will start off as a haphazard collection of facts gathered over years, and then one individual will come in and write it up proper.-BiancaOfHell 13:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) The overall structure of an article. This level is critical, since the primary interaction at Wikipedia is one person reading one article. I absolutely agree with you that many people can contribute in different ways; for instance I hate chasing down references and prefer to let other people do it. There is nothing wrong with an article evolving through time, starting as a pile of facts and then having a structure imposed by someone coming along later. --Ideogram 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Individuals and vision

Your responses are revealing and touch on one of the deepest problems facing Wikipedia, to wit:

The best writing cannot be done by committee.

There must be one person responsible for maintaining a consistent POV. Including various bits of text that different people wanted is not going to cut it. Elsewhere I have noted that Wikipedia favors articles on minor and obscure topics, because they can be written by one person who doesn't have to fight with a bunch of editors for consensus.

Since you have tackled an important topic you may not be able to impose a consistent POV. But if you cannot do that your article will never qualify as good writing. This may be the best that Wikipedia can do. But I cannot support it. I do not have a solution for you.

--Ideogram 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as I see it (if we are to debate the philosophy behind the wiki concept) that if I were to take the suggestions you offer on board, then by definition I would be acceding to your vision of how the article should be, and thus handing control over to other users. I cannot simply grant this article featured status on my own, and whatever ultimately emerges (hopefully) with a gold star on it will be the result of consensus. If I were to stand up for my "vision" of this article, many things you desire, such as the removal of Extrasolar systems and Discovery and Exploration, would occur, but many other things, such as the removal of the paragraph on relative distances, would not. Some definition of Dwarf planet vs. planet should occur in the article, and if not in that section I am not sure where it could go. Removing the line about stars dimmer than the Sun would essentially invalidate the entire section and render redundant any and all references to the HR diagram. Serendipodous 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not bringing up these issues to force you to accede to my vision. At this point I am arguing about process and not content. If I raise an objection, and you say, "well person X wanted it that way and I can't edit-war with him", or "I can't go against consensus on this" your answers are based on limitations of the Wiki process and not what is best for the article. If you say "this does not go with my vision of the article" we can discuss what your vision is and I have a chance to change your vision, while implicitly accepting that it is your vision to define. --Ideogram 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so we have something concrete to discuss, User:Ideogram/Solar System is a preliminary version of my vision for the article. --Ideogram 12:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I compared the two, and Ideogram's version is more immediate. The depth is left to the sister articles, and for this article that might be the best way to do it. There will probably be a lot of traffic to this article by all reader levels and cutting off excesses seems like the right thing to do in this situation. Some of those other articles attached to this article should go up for FA as well.-BiancaOfHell 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Only one major flaw with Ideogram's concept that I can see. It is against Wiki policy for introductory paragraphs to be labelled "Introduction". This does raise a number of issues, as the intro covers a wide range of topics and there would need to be a more specific title that covers them all. I think the best thing to do would be to merge the two paragraphs under "Introduction" with the main heading, and make the two subsections their own sections. Serendipodous 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the relevant policy so I can think about the issues and possible alternatives? --Ideogram 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just checked up with the admins; the "Wikipedia:Lead section" article is maddeningly vague, but I left a question for an editor and he specified that it was lead sections labelled "Introduction" that are disallowed; subsequent sections labelled "Introduction" are apparently fine. Serendipodous 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When do you think we can try applying my changes and letting the sharks have at it? --Ideogram 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello? --Ideogram 13:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree here; Ideogram's version is more streamlined but less comprehensive than Serendipodous' version. I think the summary overview of discovery and exploration is, in fact, necessary to a comprehensive article, and I'm not sure I could support Ideogram's version as an FA in its absence for that reason. There may indeed be a need to improve other, more specific articles about those topics, but that's no reason to omit the information from the main article about the solar system. It would be like cutting the "History" section from the Earth article -- of course the main article can't contain all of it, but containing none of it leaves a blatant gap in the article's coverage. The galactic context I'm less certain of, but I don't think it hurts the article, so I tend to lean toward inclusion there, as well. Shimeru 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be like cutting a description of Columbus' voyages from the Earth article. --Ideogram 20:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel this is much less specific than your example, but you are welcome to your opinion. Shimeru 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The "History" section of Earth is about the history of the Earth not the history of its discovery and exploration. We already have a corresponding section in Solar System, "Formation". BTW could you please not mark every edit as "minor"? Typically a minor edit is one that corrects spelling or grammar without adding new content. --Ideogram 20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a sentence is a pretty minor edit, but here you are: this one isn't marked minor. On the topic at hand... I'm not certain whether I'm utterly failing to convey my point, or whether those trees are obstructing your view of the forest, but allow me to rephrase without the example: Comprehensiveness is an FA quality. This is not, I believe, contested. You appear to feel (please correct me if I'm wrong) that an article is comprehensive if it covers one aspect of its topic in depth, and leaves other aspects entirely to subarticles. I feel that an article is comprehensive if it addresses all major aspects of its topic. In the case of this particular article, that would include a brief discussion of how our concept of the solar system evolved. I don't understand what concern motivates the suggestion that this information should be completely excised from the article -- is it the article length? Shimeru 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (*sigh* I lied. Edit conflict rechecked the minor edit box. Sorry. Shimeru 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

A quick glance at your contributions shows you mark almost every edit as minor. In my version, the brief discussion of how our concept of the Solar System evolved is in the Introduction section. We don't have a whole section describing the "Discovery and exploration" of the Earth in Earth and we don't need it here.

If you want to produce an outline of what major topics you feel a comprehensive overview should cover, I would be very interested to see it. At that point we could fill in the outline with balanced coverage of all those topics. However, that is clearly not how this article evolved; people wrote pieces on individual topics they considered interesting and stitched them together. The result looks like Frankenstein. --Ideogram 12:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the table of contents. "Sun", "Asteroid belt", "Comets", "Discovery and exploration". Which of the above do not belong? If all these topics are of equal importance, then they should be explored to equal depth, for instance the top level sections could be "Formation", "Physical structure", "Discovery and exploration", and hopefully some others. The fact that the table of contents is so unbalanced implies that they are not all of equal importance, which leads to the question of why the left arm is ten times bigger than the right. --Ideogram 13:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Most of my edits are minor, from my perspective. Copy editing, tagging, commenting in discussions. I generally use major edit only for, well, major changes or additions, or for nominations for deletion, which would constitute a major change if successful. You are correct -- we don't have a whole section describing the "Discovery and exploration" of Earth. That article is also not a FA. (But I note that all of our planetary articles except for Earth do have such a subsection. Chose a bad example, I suppose.) As for the ToC, I think I disagree with your underlying premise -- the existing ToC is more or less as I would have it. I might attempt to move "Formation" to before "Structure" for chronological reasons, but I think there's also a good argument for the current placement. "Formation" could also potentially be moved near the end, before "Galactic context" or "Exploration", although I personally think it's more aesthetically placed near the beginning. Most of the structure seems logically fixed to me, though -- define the terminology, overview the layout, then begin discussion with the sun and move outward. Shimeru 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You completely missed my point. --Ideogram 21:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite possible. My apologies, then, but the fact is: I do not see anything wrong with the current structure. I don't understand where your objections are coming from. I suspect it's simply a case of conflicting wikiphilosophies. In any case, I'm not sure the discussion is helping with the FA at this point; perhaps it would be better to continue it on my talk page, or yours? Shimeru 21:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, let's drop it. --Ideogram 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose image issues:

1. Image:Galileo's telescope.jpg - Who took this photo and where did it come from; clearly the telescope is old, but there is no source of copyright information for the photo?
2. Image:Copy of Sedna.jpg - Who created this image and where did it come from?
3. Image:Xenaandgabrielle.jpg - Needs a decent fair use rationale and a source link, does it add significantly to the article?
4. Image:Solar sys2.jpg incorrectly tagged as a user created image.

--Peta 00:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendipodous 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up.--Peta 11:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

revisions

I've made some revisions which hopefully meet Ideogram's objections half way. I've created a "Terminology" section and moved it to the top; I've also deleted the Extrasolar systems section and merged Galactic context. I've removed hypothetical planets (it's all just copied from another article anyway) and created a section called "Boundaries" which combines its intro with the former intro to "Farthest regions", which I have deleted, in favour of giving each region its own section. I'll leave any more substantial revisions until disputes are resolved. Serendipodous 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support current revision, haven't looked at original. One comment- article has a redlink in the Oort Cloud section, galactic tides. Needs to be linked to an article that describes it, as it's a technical term. --PresN 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am generally satisfied with this organization, the section "Galactic context" flows naturally from the structure of describing the Solar System from the inside outwards. It still needs a good copyedit but I am holding off on that until the remaining major question about "Discovery and exploration" is settled. --Ideogram 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I really don't like the astronomical symbols in the lead. You do realize they don't resize when the user tries to change the text size in his browser? --Ideogram 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• You really need to fix those bold links. --Ideogram 06:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Copyedit done. I am pleased to change my vote to Support. One more note: this is just a personal preference, but I prefer not to specify the size of images explicitly; this allows users to use the thumbnail size they specified in their preferences. --Ideogram 08:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Glad I was able to assuage your concerns. :-) I have only two issues with your copyedit; the elimination of the definitions of perihelion and aphelion (the words are used later in the article and we shouldn't expect a reader new to astronomy to understand them) and the removal of the line describing the heliosphere as a bubble. Admittedly, "bubble" isn't the best description, since the heliosphere isn't an empty space surrounded by a membrane, but there might be a better description. Serendipodous 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By all means fix them as you see fit. --Ideogram 18:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the definitions to Terminology. I think the heliosphere can remain as is for now, at least until I come up with a better analogy. Serendipodous 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Outstanding and a very enjoyable read. Buc 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieval dates

Some of the sources appear to have been retrieved on dates that have not yet occurred, e.g. 2 April 2007. This needs fixing. Atomic1609 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I get confused. Are we supposed to be using American dates (Month/Day) or British dates (Day/Month)? Serendipodous 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink them, and they should appear according to the preferences you've set. [[April 2]], [[2007]] produces April 2, 2007, for instance. Or in this case, February 4, 2007. Shimeru 19:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Next phase

_________________________

• I think all the issues raised have been dealt with. What needs to happen now? Serendipodous 13:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that after a certain amount of time the article fate is determined by the forum adminstrator. — RJH (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's fated for FA status. It would be silly if this article wasn't promoted.-BiancaOfHell 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No doubt, but I didn't want to be presumptuous. Besides, waiting a little longer resulted in some more good feedback. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

_________________________

Distances

• Support. Apologies if I put this in the wrong section, the subheadings have me confused - feel free to move it to the right one. Understandable, comprehensive, thoroughly cited. Nitpicks:
  • Can you add something like "we live on Earth" somewhere? Yes, it's probably obvious, but also rather important. You may want to tie it to the perhaps less obvious note why things planet size or AU are measured in comparison to Earth.
  • "All planets in the solar system have now been visited to varying degrees by spacecraft launched from Earth, the last being Neptune in 1989." "The last" bothers me - if you are referring to Voyager 2, just above, then say so, if not say that and provide a link. Or just leave out "the last" and everything after that in that sentence.
  • Pluto ... ; this changed in 2006 with the adoption of a formal definition of "planet". - needs a Wikilink, we surely have an article on that. It's recent and important. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points on the last two. As to the first I really don't know how I'd include it. Serendipodous 11:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the first to the subsection on Earth, unsurprisingly enough. I don't think why any distances or sizes are measured with respect to Earth belongs in a Solar System article though; there are astronomical distances and planet articles for that. Spiral Wave 11:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's a wee bit irrellevant perhaps but it does have a certain poetic/philosophical value :-) As regards Earth-based units, the only ones I'm aware of are Earth masses for planets and the astronomical unit. Earth masses isn't really an official unit; it's only really practical for measuring the other eight planets in the Solar System. Extrasolar planets and brown dwarfs are usually measured in jovian masses, while stars are usually measured in solar masses. You might argue that, due to our intuitive familiarity with the objects in our Solar System, their values are often used as standard units for extrasolar objects such as planets and stars. Serendipodous 11:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Parsecs are also Earth-based, but again, I don't think there's any value having them in the article. I suppose I could see a case for AU at a push, slid into the Earth section in a similar way, but the article should be about what's there, not our arcane units derived from it. As for humans, I wasn't sure if you could see how to slide it in smoothly. Feel free to rip it back out. Spiral Wave 12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I like it :-). I think I'll keep it in unless someone else raises a serious objection. Serendipodous 12:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And the Earth radius, I suppose (although that is a bit like measuring things by reference to the height of Nelson's Column or the length of a double-decker bus); and the parsec is derived from the AU. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not directly, but perhaps indirectly. A parsec is the point at which a star's parallax is equal to one arcsecond, and you could argue that, since a star's parallax is determined by the distance from the Earth to the Sun, it is derived from the AU, but not in the way that, say, the kilometre is derived from the metre. Serendipodous 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just meant that it was yet another measurement derived from Earth orbit. Rather than worry about where to draw the line, and since the connections are tenuous, I reckon it's easier not to have any of them in, s'all. Spiral Wave 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know! I have been tarting up parsec over the last couple of days! No, the parsec is not an SI derived unit, like the newton or the farad, but the definition of the parsec is driven by the AU - the parallax angle for an Earth-bound observer is defined by reference to a baseline of one AU, and, as you say, the parsec is defined by refernce to the parallax angle. An object at a distance of one parsec would have a different parallax on another planet, because its orbit around the Sun would be greater or smaller than 1 AU. (Either that, or you would have to redefine the parsec.) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to be patronising, I was just saying it's yet another unit that could go in, but there seems to be little point. So, do we all agree? And if so, why are we arguing? ;) Spiral Wave 14:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry - I was trying to reply to Serendipodous, but you got their first! But I agree, it is a bit tangential to the discussion. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware we were arguing. Apologies if either of you took anything I wrote the wrong way; it can be difficult to get your point across online. Serendipodous 15:25, 16 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.