Wikipedia:Featured article review/Transit of Venus/archive1

Transit of Venus edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Sandy 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few references: apart from a couple of in-line links, there is only one reference for the whole article - and that is a single page from a publication. Hard to believe that the entire article's information is referenced within that one page. These reference styles are inconsistent in any case.

There is choppy, unprofessional language used through the article. ("the transits of 2004 and 2012 last about six hours"). What tense is this supposed to be written in?

This article looks interesting on the surface, and I'd like to see it remain Featured - but it needs to be cleaned up a bit by someone who knows the subject well enough, and is able to obtain more references. EuroSong ^talk 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more inline citations. LuciferMorgan 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Four edits since nom, some refs added by Pagrashtak, (diff), still lacking inline citations, move to FARC. Sandy 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove~~ Lacks inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 17:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong remove~~.Neutral..Keep Very very very poor references-not a thoroughly researched article. AALmost no inline citations. Three sections are stubby and full of one-sentence paragraphs. Section "Transits of Venus in popular culture" is like a trivia section-it should be turned into prose.--Yannismarou 14:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm starting work on this, but in addition to the citation problems it is currently not comprehensive: there is no discussion of the contact phases other than in a brief aside. It's not necessary to devote vasts amounts of text to this, but it should be mentioned. I suspect it is thoroughly researched though, just not referenced - you don't pull the exact details of the transits out of the air. Yomangani ^talk 23:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've rewritten this and given inline citations. The scientific interest and observing sections have been almost completely reworked and the popular culture section has been dropped (as most of it wasn't popular culture, and what there was could be worked into the text) and replaced with an ancient history section. I think it could remain an FA now, but constructive criticism is welcomed. Yomangani ^talk 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, another fine save job. The referencing is thorough, I'm leaning towards keep after we hear from other editors who know the territory. Sandy 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nice referencing work. I turn my vote into neutral per Sandy.--Yannismarou 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. I feel a few more refs wouldn't do the article any harm, though even if this action isn't taken I still feel it would be enough to say 'Remove'. So, I change my vote to neutral (can't remember if I've ever gone for this vote). LuciferMorgan 16:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep It's a lot better now, thanks to the hard work of Yomangani. However, I'm still not sure if it feels like a Featured Article to me. There are things missing: for example, it is mentioned that the current pattern of 105.5, 8, 121.5 and 8 years is not the only pattern possible; and examples are given of other patterns. However, no explanation is provided as to why these patterns change. In other places, the style is inconsistent (first paragraph of "Grazing and simultaneous transits"): dates are not Wikified (they're given in exclusively American style). This paragraph is also unreferenced. As I say, the whole thing is much improved: but still needs work. EuroSong ^talk 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the points you raised (Can't believe I failed to cite that paragraph - I've slapped myself, so it won't happen again) Yomangani ^talk 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thanks :) I now switched from "Comment" to "Keep". EuroSong ^talk 08:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More fantastic work from Yomangani. Some thoughts:

"Before modern astronomy, observations of transits of Venus helped scientists using the parallax method calculate the distance between the Sun and the Earth." Would we call them scientists "before modern astronomy"? The people mentioned later as doing initial work on the topic, Kepler and a Mr. Jeremiah Horrocks, are both post-Copernican, and "before modern astronomy" doesn't well describe them. Or is that sentence in the intro meant to refer to still earlier work?
This leads to thoughts on sectioning. I think "Ancient history" should be moved up immediately before "Scientific interest in transits". Rename the latter—perhaps "Modern research". They might both then be moved under one level two ("Research and observation"?). "Grazing and simultaneous transits" should then be bumped above "Observing", the latter becoming the last section. Sectioning in general is, of course, partly open to interpretation. But this one doesn't seem right.
Given the rarity of the event, surely the 2004 transit produced research papers. A small section on that would be fine.
"A transit of Venus should be observed only with proper precautions" and following in the intro. The shift to a prescriptive tone does not have the right feel. Tweak it to a neutral description of how observing occus (e.g., avoid "should").

This obviously well on its way to a keep. Kudos again. Marskell 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't that happy with the layout either, but since nobody raised it I didn't want to play around with it - I will now though (and take care of the copyediting). With regard to the issue of the 2004 transit - it has its own article and I think that level of detail probably belongs in there (it isn't actually in there, but it should be), what do you think? Yomangani ^talk 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will move to a keep as I think this is now within criteria. Re 2004, I think five or so sentences as a level three under past and future would be in order, particularly if it's not in the sub-article and should be; a sentence or two on what to expect for the next one would be fine too. Might see what can be found here. Marskell 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another fine save by Yomangani. Sandy 15:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Three~~ Four keeps now; are there any opposes? Sandy 14:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]