Wikipedia:Featured article review/Crab Nebula/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 3:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC) [1].

Crab Nebula[edit]

Nominator User:Worldtraveller retired. Notified: WikiProject Astronomy
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

One section tagged for citation, and failed verification on at least one issue. DrKiernan (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the references there are some with incomplete information, such as
    • no DOI for some journal articles,
      • Looks to be old stuff or journals that never allocated DOI back that far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • no ISBN,
    • missing dates or authors,
    • red linked author (which is probably useless). John C. Duncan
    • Perhaps some authors do have articles and are not linked.
    • Most authors have space between their intials, but Rossi, B.B.; Mayall, N.U. and Burn B.J. do not.
    • Dud DOI at 10.3847/BAASOBIT2012011 - all BAAS obituaries seem to bad dois
    • Dud DOI at 10.1086/129507 10.1086/123101 (on JSTOR)
    • Abbreviated journal BAAS should expand to Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society.
  • Text in foot notes 5 and 9 should probably go in-line in the text, as it is not obvious that there more on these topics below.
  • All this (apart from DOI) should be easy to fix. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "done" templates (they cause problems in archives), but the entry is unsigned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject FAR: are we really going to fail an article because of a single random edit made the better part of a decade after the FA? And are we going to do that without making the slightest effort to contact the editor in question to address the problem? Seriously? Don't worry, I took care of that. As to the rest, Graeme, are any of these even needed? DOI's and ISBN? Nice to have, surely (well not really, you may as well ask for their index card numbers), but listing them here suggests these are FA-level issues. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I say is not intended to fail this, but lead to improvements. Remember that FA is the best that we can do, so if it can be improved then we do so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyediting for clarity. Cite provided (one click away). Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not going to "fail" an article over a single random edit. We never do that at FAR. The emphasis at this stage is on review and improvement with a view to keeping the article featured. See the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page. DrKiernan (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements, and please read FAR instructions and lower the temperature. As DrK mentions ... and the talk page was noticed weeks ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sample problem found with a quick glance: in this section, the first two paragraphs are uncited (an explanatory footnote is not a citation). In this section, half of the second paragraph is uncited.

Why Solar Transit but Lunar transit (upper vs. lower case)? (And short choppy sections-- why are separate sections needed on those?)

Does the article use British or American English (favourable vs. ize)?

A short biography of Jan Hendrik Oort, Section 7 is not a citation.

Yes, a thorough review and update is overdue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, in late December I asked at WP:ASTRO for help cleaning up this article and Enceladus. I just tagged the unsourced sections mentioned by Sandy. Some minor attention is also needed for consistent capitalization, linking on first occurrence, langvar, and ref formatting; I'll be happy to pitch in on those if we can get the unsourced content taken care of. Maralia (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Transit inconsistency taken care of. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, to keep on track. It has been almost two weeks, and while there has been some improvement, there is still work to be done and it's not clear anyone is undertaking to restore this to status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More than two weeks in, major issues still not addressed, lots of uncited text. Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. I'm sorry I can't help on this one; the subject matter is too technical for me to contribute usefully. The uncited text and verifiability is still a concern. It's fairly short for an FA, which might indicate a lack of comprehensiveness. The composite image should have details for each image that is used to make up the composite; information templates would be helpful on each of the image files; the video file is subtitled in Danish, which is somewhat distracting; and the images do not appear, with one or two exceptions, to relate to the adjacent text. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section largely concern referencing, prose, and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist fails on referencing alone - and until the references and the verifiability of the content are sorted there's no point in sorting the prose. BencherliteTalk 23:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am able to reference all the citation needed bits. So there is no need to delist. I am also concerned that coverage may not be complete. But that is much harder to determine. I suppose someone will have to get a recent book, or review on the topic, and see if everything is covered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are declaring keep at the same time you are saying the article may not meet 1b, and hoping someone else will fix that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as the attitude here seems to be to get rid of the FA status without trying to fix the problems, so someone has to oppose that! So far I have found no books written recently on the topic. That means that it is more likely that the article is not too deficient. The scope is important too, as there are separate articles for Crab Pulsar and SN 1054. So this has to be more detailed on the nebula. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. Anyway, we still have incomplete citations, and now an external jump in the lead. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the images seem to be sorted, but the article and prose are not; sustained attention is needed. On the minor issues, wikilinking is all over the place (how many times can we link Saturn and the Titan moon in one article-- for that matter, in the lead alone). The LEAD should be digestible to a layperson (that's me-- it's not). The reader is required to click on multiple links to understand what the lead is saying. I stopped there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Thank you for the citations and the improvements to the images. Unfortunately, I am not able to support the continued listing of this article. I've just tried to address one of my more minor comments from the review section by attempting to integrate the images with the text. By doing so, I've confirmed two other comments I made there: the complexity of the content and the issue of comprehensiveness. For example, I was looking for a home for an image "showing Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities", but (as far as I can tell) there is no explanation of what they are or why they are important or how they relate to the nebula anywhere in the article. Similarly, there is a video about "Fermi spots" but apart from the video and the image caption, Fermi spots are not mentioned or explained anywhere in the article. These examples demonstrate that the article is not comprehensive. I admit that I am nowhere near an expert on this subject matter but I can tell from these images that there must be research on the nebula and its features that is not covered in the article, except in passing in unenlightening image captions. DrKiernan (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist (I forgot to declare above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist"Connection to SN 1054" section, third paragraph needs referencing. I also agree the issue of comprehensiveness. And about the comment from Graeme Bartlett, I guess we are, and should just determine this article meet the criteria or not.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Crab_Nebula/archive1&oldid=1077421412"