Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2021

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 October 2021 [1].

I Knew You Were Trouble

Nominator(s):

Ippantekina (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is about... the Taylor Swift song that we did not know we wanted. Ms. Swift had never been taken seriously as a country music goody-two-shoes, until this song arrived and proved that America's Sweetheart was capable of being cooler-than-average. Though many can dismiss this song as yet another deliberate Top 40 trick from a teenybopper, this "Trouble" song has become one of Ms. Swift's biggest hits.

After a total overhaul of the article and a GAN, I am humbled to bring this to FAC, and open to any and all suggestion regarding the article's prose and coverage. Thank you very much,

Ippantekina (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

I will post a full review for this either tomorrow or on Wednesday. Apologies for the delay. I only have one note right now. I would remove
Aoba47 (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The image is to comply with the upcoming DYK (which features this image). After the DYK is done, I will remove it right away.
Ippantekina (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Since the DYK is currently on the main page, I see no problem in waiting until it is done to remove it.
Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I have a few comments about this sentence: It was released for digital download on October 9, 2012, as the third
pop radio single. I would split it into two as it is a lot of information and I do not think the semicolon is used correctly. I would also add the record label (i.e. Big Machine) to the prose as done in the "Shake It Off
" article.
- Revised.

For this part, Swift developed the song as a ballad on piano, the piano link is not necessary as I would imagine a majority of readers are already familiar with the instrument. I would also change the ballad link to go to the sentimental ballad article as that is more reflective of the ballad being discussed here.
- Revised.
I would revise this part, dubstep—a genre that Swift had little knowledge of—to the song, which Swift said was, to avoid repeating Swift twice in the same sentence.
- Revised.
I have a comment for the quote in this part, that would make the audience "freaked out over". Something about it just seems off to me, like it does not really work in this context, and I think it would be better to just paraphrase this instead.
- It probably had something to do with Swift's country music image, but since the Billboard ref does not explicitly say this, I removed the whole part.
I would move the "Release" section after the "Music and lyrics" section as done in articles like "Blank Space". I have seen articles with the "Release" section put before the "Music and lyrics" section (and I have done it myself), but that is in cases when the "Release" section is combined with the section about the recording process and that is not the case here.
- Makes sense. Rearranged.
For this part, In an interview with the Associated Press in October 2013, I do not think it is necessary to include the month.
- Removed.
The article makes a few references to this being a
pop radio and country radio
. I am suggesting a footnote as the article already uses them and I think it would be too clunky to put right in the prose.
- Added. Hope it clears things up.

The "Release" section refers to the song being removed from Spotify. I can access it on my Spotify account so it was seemingly added back so an update to this would be beneficial as it currently ends with saying the song was removed.

I have another comment for this part. The "Release" section just casually mentions that Swift withdrew her catalog from Spotify without providing any context. I would briefly expand on this as some readers may end up on this page without knowing anything about Swift or this particular aspect of her career.

Added some explanation on Spotify.

For this part, but chose to ignore the "red flags", I am not sure if red flags needs to be in quotes as it is a rather common phrase. You can also paraphrase it as warning signs or something similar.

Removed the quotation marks.

I am uncertain about this part, "I Knew You Were Trouble" generated much discussion because it introduced the genre to a wider audience of mainstream pop, which had been "sonically conservative for the past half-decade". Britney Spears had already released "Hold It Against Me" in 2011 and that had a dubstep breakdown and was commercially successful. This part reads like "I Knew You Were Trouble" was the one song that broke dubstep into mainstream pop, and I do not think that is true (per the example I mentioned and I am sure others).
- While it may be factually incorrect, this is directly framed within the opinion of a LA Times critic. I think it should be fine as long as there is appropriate attribution.
  - Thank you for the explanation. You are correct. This part is not only attributed with a citation, but the prose also clarifies that this is one critic's opinion so it should be okay.
    Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

For this part, became one of the dubstep-influenced songs from its time that managed to age well, I would be more specific than "from its time" as the current wording is rather vague.

Revised.

For the third paragraph of the "Critical reception" section, I would vary the sentence structure as it is currently rather repetitive, which makes it less engaging for the reader.

Revised.

I do not think "dismissive" in this part, felt that the dubstep sound was dismissive, really makes sense.

Reworded.

For this part, which overshadowed Swift's lyrical narrative, I would just say "lyrics". The phrasing "lyrical narrative" just seems unnecessarily wordy.

Revised.

I would remove this part, Carney had starred as
Peter Parker in the Broadway musical Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark
, as it is not connected to the song or the music video.

Here are my comments so far and I hope they are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through the article again. I hope you are having a great week so far!

Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for your insightful comments. Hope you are having a great week as well!

Ippantekina (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I am glad that I can help! Let me know when you have addressed all the comments.
Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Done all! Thank you for your comments again :)
Ippantekina (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your patience with my review and for addressing all of my comments. I will look through the article again sometime tomorrow.
Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I have a comment about this part, as "just as chaotic as the feeling was when [she] wrote it". The quote does not really make sense here as it cuts off a word. In the citation, it is "sounds just as chaotic as the feeling was when I wrote it" and without the "sounds", it is not really clear what Swift is describing as chaotic.

Revised.

Would it be possible to revise this part, it "ultimately gets absorbed into [Swift's] own aesthetic", resulting in a radio-friendly song that retained Swift's authentic, "sharply crafted" songwriting, without repeating "Swift's" twice in the same sentence?

Revised.

I would revise this sentence, The music video for "I Knew You Were Trouble" was directed by Anthony Mandler., so it is in the active tense rather than the passive tense.

Revised.

After reading this part, Rolling Stone labeled Swift's look as "punk"., I went to the article to find the quote and I do not think it is used correctly. Correct me if I am wrong, but the "punk" quote is taken from the article's title and that does not clearly connect it with her look. Later on, the article describes the video as having "punk-rock decadence" so this seems to be more about the events in the music video.

Removed.

For this part, Marie Claire commented that this "edgy" look, I would paraphrase "edgy" as the one-word quote is not particularly useful in this context.

I think the "edgy" quote explains the author's comment on Swift's image later in the sentence; plus I don't know if "edgy" can be paraphrased so that it conveys the exact meaning, given that the word has crept into public use.

That should be fine then.
Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

This part, Swift speaks in a monologue, is not correct, and I would either use "delivers a monologue" and "gives a monologue" instead.

Revised.

I admit that it has been a while since I watched this music video, but I got confused by this part, This love interest exhibits behaviors that are unreliable. There are seemingly multiple love interests, but the distinction between the one played by Carney and this other one is not clear. Could you clarify this for me?

There is only one love interest (Carney)!

Then why say "this love interest"? That wording implies to me that there are more than one as "this" seems to be specifying one from another. I would just change that part.
Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

In the last paragraph of the "Music video" section, you only say the publications in the prose (i.e. Spin and Vulture noted similarities), while the previous section also use the writers' names. I would add the names here for consistency if known. If they are not known, I would say something like a Rolling Stone writer. This is also true for the "punk" Rolling Stone quote earlier in this section.

Revised, but kept unknown authors out; I think "a writer from ..." is kinda redundant.

For this part, Yahoo! found the storyline, link Yahoo! and I would encourage you to archive the link (although the second part is not required for this FAC).

Revised.

For this part, Melinda Newman agreed, attribute what publication Melinda Newman is writing for as this is her first mention in the article.

Revised.

I would re-examine the prose for the last paragraph of the "Music video" section. It has a lot of great content, but it can read like a list at times. I would think about varying the sentence structure and trying to make it flow more cohesively.

Rewritten.

In the "Credits and personnel" section, I would remove the writer link as I believe a majority of readers would already understand the concept.

Removed.

This is probably a silly question so apologies in advance, but does the upcoming rerecording of the song need its own section or its own infobox? There's very little information about it other than it is going to be released. I could see this being folded into the "Release" section with the infobox removed. If further information about this rerecording is released, then a separate section can also be made again, but it just seems unnecessary to me.

I had a discussion with other Taylor Swift WikiProject members, and it seems they want to keep the section.

It is not a huge issue to me. I really do not see the value in this section, but it would be best to see how other reviews see it.
Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Citations 4 and 5 are live for me so I would change the citations to reflect that.

Revised.

When I click on a few of the MTV citations, I notice a MTV News banner on the top. With that in mind, shouldn't it be MTV News instead of MTV?

I think they are pretty much the same...

Fair enough. I will leave this to whoever does the source review.
Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

MTV is not linked in citation 23 even though the publications/websites are consistently linked in the other citations.

Linked.

I decided to post my further comments much earlier than expected. I believe this should be all of my comments. I have primarily focused on the prose, but I have a few comments about the citations at the end. Let me know if you have any questions. Once my above comments are addressed, I will re-read the article and will very likely support it at that point. Reading this article made me feel super old because I was in college when this song was released >< lol.

Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them all. I still remember when this song dropped everyone around me was talking about how Swift has gone so un-country for weeks! But they all turned out to be loyal Swift fans after all lol.

Ippantekina (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your responses. Once my rather minor note about the music video synopsis is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion.
Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

All set, I believe :)
Ippantekina (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Everything looks to me. Thank you for your patience with my review. I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Have a great weekend!
Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Support from Hurricanehink

Support, now that the screaming goat is in :D ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time reviewing the article :D

Ippantekina (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

So first I gotta ask, is it worth mentioning the version of the song with the screaming goat? I don't mean that as a joke; when I saw the article was on FAC, I wanted to see if it was included. If you need a good source, how's People.com? It could just be a sentence in the "music video" section.

I am uncertain if the goat remix is that relevant, given that it was a temporary reaction to the song and has apparently died down.. 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if the reaction died down, it was still part of the cultural legacy of the song. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added something to the "Music video" section.
Ippantekina (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

When was the song recorded?

I looked through the album booklet and couldn't find such information. It's safe to guess it was recorded some time in 2012, though.
Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"While Swift promoted Red as a country music album and released singles to country radio, "I Knew You Were Trouble" was the first single from Red not promoted to country radio." - this seems pretty important, more than just sticking in some note.
"I Knew You Were Trouble" was released as a single in the U.K. on December 10, 2012[30] and in Italy on January 11, 2013. - so what does it mean to be released as a single in those countries? The article says how it charted in multiple countries, not just these two.

I am pretty sure the song was released worldwide; I added these two countries because there are clear-cut sources for the release dates, unlike others.
Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

While Roberts acknowledged that critics could dismiss the dubstep as conceit, it was justifiable for Swift—"the pop moment"—to experiment with mainstream trends. - I don't get the grammar or meaning of "the pop moment" here. The quote seems out of place.

Paraphrased.
Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

There is nothing about the song's key, tempo, chord progression. It's in F#/Gb major or D#/Eb minor for what it's worth.

I considered using musicnotes.com but there has been concern regarding the reliability of this website. Any thoughts?
Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm, I can't find a good source discussing key. What about the tempo though? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a good source, either, unfortunately..
Ippantekina (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Overall, the article is in really good shape. The biggest thing missing is the key/tempo/chords. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I have responded to them as above. Have a great day!

Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image/media review (pass)

WR:FUR
is clear and complete.
File:IKnewYouWereTrouble.ogg: This also checks out to me. There is a clear justification for the inclusion of a non-free audio sample and the WP:FUR is also clear and complete here.
File:Reeve Carney Bluesfest.jpg: I will assume good faith that this was the author's original work.
File:Taylor Swift - RED Tour - LONDON - I Knew You Were Trouble (night 4).jpg: The source link leads to a "This is not the page you’re looking for" page. I did find an archived version of this page so I would use that.

Everything looks good for the most part. If possible though, I would fix the issue with the source link for the Red Tour image and then I will mark this image/media review as passed. I hope you have a great weekend.

Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your image review. I have added the archive-url in the description box of the Red Tour file. Hope everything is okay now :)

Ippantekina (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Everything looks good to me now. This passes my image/media review.
Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Heartfox

I said I would leave some comments here but unfortunately I don't have much time anymore. This is not a full "source review" but here are some comments:

ref 21 "American Broadcasting Company" shouldn't be italicized. It's also under ABC News website so I would write that instead of American Broadcasting Company.

Done.

ref 81 url-status=dead
per
MOS:CONFORMTITLE
bullet 4, stuff like 'Red' or Billboard should be italicized in citation titles whether the source does or not.

Done.

ref 27 I don't know if a podcast transcript that has "not been reviewed prior to publication" meets the high-quality sources requirement.
ref 30 is there a better source than Popjustice/one closer to December 10 than October 29 article date? Release dates could change in a month's time.
ref 81 I might cite Capital FM or Irish Independent instead

Replaced with Irish Independent.

no issues about other sources

ref 2 "and co-produced it with Nathan Chapman, her longtime collaborator" not in source

Done.

ref 3 this sentence is presented as a fact, but is citing a review, which is one person's opinion.
ref 21 date is 2012, not 2013

Done.

ref 27 it might be helpful to specify a location where the statement can be verified. Either cite a timestamp from the audio version instead or use the quote= parameter. I don't know what to look for here.
ref 42 date is October 17 not October 14

Done.

Prose looks very good so far. Good luck with the nomination. Heartfox (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. Will complete everything real soon :)

Ippantekina (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Done all! Thank you very much again for taking time reviewing the article :)

Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments from TRM

"and Shellback. The song was released on" for flow, i'd go "and Shellback, and was released on"

Wouldn't that make the sentence sprawling?

"album entirely by herself" maybe "she wrote all the tracks on the album herself"

Done

"Although Swift wanted to experiment with various musical styles, she—as a songwriter—prioritized the lyrics over the production, striving" this is a little tabloid feeling, is this something we can quote or attribute?

Done

"his protégé" basic English adopted word, no need for a link.

Done

"A day following the" weird, "The day after"?

Done

"single in the U.K. on" United Kingdom.

Done

"On a less positive side" -> "Less positively"

Removed

That takes me to "Commercial performance", sorry I have to come back to this but I will. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the U.K., "I Knew You Were Trouble" peaked at number two on the UK Singles Chart" U.K. and UK, is odd looking, especially in a single sentence, consistency within the article.

Done

"Swift sports a " wears

Done

"Martins and Vulture's Amanda" Vulture is overlinked.

Done

"from Uproxx,[72] and" and Uproxx.

I don't quite get this..

Why isn't "Chart (2012)" sortable?

Done

Several refs appear to have the publisher/source in the title as well as in the publisher parameter, it only needs to be there once.

If you are referring to chart sources (australian-charts.com etc.) they are automatically generated by {{
Ippantekina (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Nevertheless, the publishers/websites shouldn't appear in the title in the reference. If that means you use a normal citation template, so be it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a specific guide saying so? I'm curious.
Ippantekina (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

No but you wouldn't repeat the publisher name in the title and the publisher field for any good reason. Remove the repeats please. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't replace a widely used template ({{

Ippantekina (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, well that's your call. I think having the reference source in the title is unprofessional and unbecoming of the best work on Wikipedia, so that's fine, but I won't support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not good until the {{Single chart}} issue is resolved. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina, how are you doing on that? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, the template {{

Ippantekina (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ippantekina (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi TRM, is this now good to go? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, still issues per above remain, along with associated MOS issues, such as spaced hyphens in ref titles because of it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you mark where issues have not been resolved so that I could follow? I currently don't see spaced hyphens in ref titles as they are now en-dashes.

Ippantekina (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ref 169 has the spaced hyphens, but a lot of the refs around that one still have the website title in the ref title as well as in the publisher field. Unnecessary and inelegant duplication. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about the Sweden ref, which I have resolved. The rest seems fine to me as the publisher field does not reiterate anything in the title (XX single certification should be fine).

Ippantekina (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

(Current) ref 164 repeats Ultratop. Come on, this isn't that hard. I'm not going over this again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, including the spaced hyphen issue.

Ippantekina (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi again TRM, has this finally nailed it? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

TRM, is that a support from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's an acknowledgement that most of the citations aren't badly formatted any longer. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything left that keeps you from supporting?

Ippantekina (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Source review

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

FN4: it appears that Erlewine is the surname, not Thomas

Done.

What makes All Access a high-quality reliable source? Uproxx? fan2.fr?

fan2.fr is an entertainment website owned by French group
Ippantekina (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Uproxx is an entertainment website that appears to be appropriate for news/reports. For music criticism, it appears not all writers are credible critics (the Wall Street Journal acknowledged the website had hired a reputable critic), so I removed the Uproxx source used for critical reviews.
Ippantekina (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

webcitation.org appears to be broken

Replaced.

Domain names like taylorswift.org should generally use |website=
FN42: author name is misspelled. Ditto FN90, check for others

Fixed.

FN54: don't include website name within the title. Ditto FN56, check for others

The refs are automatically generated by {{
Ippantekina (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

How so? You have the option to amend the template, or not use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guide specifically saying not to include website names in citation titles? The template is convenient for a large number of charts so I wouldn't opt for manual referencing as an alternative. If this is detrimental to the article's quality, I'll raise a discussion at the template talk (the template is permanently template-protected so I cannot edit it). But if not, I don't see any reason as a large number of Music FAs (specifically Pop music) use the template.
Ippantekina (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The rest of the article uses {{
WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

FN73 is missing author. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thank you very much for the source review.
Ippantekina (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion ongoing elsewhere about the {{single chart}} refs; the other issues have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of sourcing

10: Sorry, which part of this (or #9) supports the "boldest" part? The other cite is OK.

She said, "It’s one of the most adventurous songs on the record, soundwise."

13: OK.
26: Archive is broken.

Replaced.

106: Is the embedded Tweet a reliable source?

The embedded Tweets are for decorative purposes; otherwise the report by Billboard is reliable.

59: OK.
133: OK.
97: OK.
7: I am not sure that any of the sources discusses the use of a synthesizer.

Added another source.

6: OK.
44: None of the sources mentions "Hot Digital".

Done.

131: OK.
75: OK.
43: OK.
61: OK.
48: OK.
171: Does the article say that the re-recording began in November?

Reworded.

94: OK.
20: Can I get a screenshot?
28: Can I get a screenshot?

Which part are you referring to?
Sorry, I meant 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added an archive-url.
Ippantekina (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Saw it, but it's a little ambiguous on which song came first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I removed the dubious claim :)
Ippantekina (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

121: OK.

Note that I know nothing about the sources used here so I am assuming reliability throughout. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. I have responded above :)

Ippantekina (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only need source #20 for the last check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the New York Times piece? I added an archive-url.
Ippantekina (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, now everything checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message to coordinator

Ippantekina (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Message noted and I shall try to go through it and come to a conclusion as to whether further reviews are needed over the next few days. It is possible that I will decide that a consensus to promote has been reached.

One thing I shall be picking up is the inconsistent rendering of titles in citations into title case. There are various ways of doing this, but falling back on the "standard approach" in (cite 82) "Gomez, Bieber win top Disney gongs", why the lower case initial letters? Compare with eg cites 80 and 81. There are a number of others. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I usually copy the title directly from the article. Is there a guide saying titles must be rendered consistently (i.e. upper case initial letters for all etc.)?
Ippantekina (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

MOS:5LETTER. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I tweaked the capitalized articles in citations' titles. If I understand correctly, MOS:TITLE allows for sentence case in citations' titles--there is an example from BBC News in the notes.

Ippantekina (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, as I said above "There are various ways of doing this". Whichever you prefer, so long as you are consistent. Are you? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm here at the moment so can action this, tks

Ippantekina. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose from Laser brain

~~Conducting a review now.~~ --Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for leaving these types of remarks so late in your review, but I just returned from a wikibreak and this one caught my interest. I find the writing to be middling at best, and not up to the high standards we expect of a Featured article. A few examples:

There are plain grammatical errors that indicate the need for an outside copyedit. For example:

"The two producers infused elements of dubstep ... to the song" isn't really correct usage of the word "infuse"
"she prioritized the lyrics over the production, which she deemed important as a songwriter" The way you've written this conveys the opposite meaning of what I think you wanted.

The writing suffers from a problem that I've seen in many articles about songs and albums, which is that it's evident that you read and paraphrased a source without really understanding the meaning of the source. As someone who's been in the industry since I was a teen, I've never heard someone say things like:

"instrumented by heavy synthesizers"
"musically expands on the ... sound"
"The song begins with a ... production"

Those are just awkward phrases that don't mean anything to me as a subject matter expert. I think a review is needed of the cited sources to ensure we're understanding and accurately conveying the meaning.

I question some of the wording choices as possible OR. For example, you write "her previous albums' formulaic country pop sound" but "formulaic" is a very loaded term in the entertainment industry that means the artist is producing cookie-cutter work based on a proven formula. That may very well be true of Swift up to that point, but the cited source doesn't say as much.

These are just some examples of why I think the article needs much more work to reach FA standard. I would be happy to help informally or at a Peer Review process. --Laser brain (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2021 [2].

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Princess Celestia... (that joke's probably not funny anymore)

If you were on the Internet during the early 2010s, then chances are you've heard of this little girls' "toy advertisement" or, more likely, their fandom: the "bronies". While some might find it unsurprising these days, it was hugely unexpected that adult men would get attached to a show about singing, pastel ponies designed to sell toys to the point that it became one of 2011's best Internet memes (that's not just me, look it up). Really, this show is great. Don't question that.

But we're not talking about the show's quality. We're talking about this article's. Hopefully, it can exemplify Wikipedia's best work but it may not. This article has gone through four featured article nominations prior to this one, all nominated by different editors in the first half of the last decade. Ten years since the article's first nomination (intentional), let's try again. This is my first featured article nomination so I'm very nervous :P. I'd like to thank Wingwatchers, SNUGGUMS and Z1720 for commenting on the article's most recent peer review and all those who commented on reviews and nominations before that... (how do I end this?) Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Per

WP:FILMCAST, can citations be added to the cast section? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Um... what? Firstly, this is not a film list; secondly, it says citations are only needed for uncredited roles, which aren't present here (seriously, even "Gravy Boat" is credited). Pamzeis (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis, I am only suggesting that adding them would be sohow conveniently helpful, I guess that's optional. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Pamzeis (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, switching topic.., ref #12 is permanent deadlinked and there isn't an archive link attached to it. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've removed it as it's not necessary anyways. Pamzeis (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wingwatchers. It has been almost a week since you left your last comment, and I was wondering whether you were going to leave more or were in a position to support or oppose? Neither is obligatory, of course. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have to see the final results and comments. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass

With the three-week-mark approaching, and little progress, I'll attempt for the image review.

File:My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic logo - 2017.svg — It is a non free image with an appropriate rational.
File:Lauren Faust.jpg — CC 2.0 from Flickr.
File:Jayson Thiessen and Sethisto at BroNYCon Sept. 2011 cropped.jpg — Own work of a user, good faith assumed on authorship.
File:Daniel ingram.png — Own work of a user, good faith assumed on authorship.
File:Mlp fim storyboard sample.png — Another non free image, with appropriate rational. 2 non-free images in an article are allowed, but ... I'l still appreciate if you can further elaborate how is this specific image useful.
- Hopefully, done.
File:C2E2 2013 - Twilight Sparkle (8701577779).jpg — CC 2.0 from Flickr.
ALT text looks fine.

Overall, looks fine on images. Would appreciate if you could clarify just one point above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your image review, Kavyansh.Singh! I have responded to the one point above, hopefully satisfactorily. If there's anything else you'd like to point out, please do! Again, thank you! Pamzeis (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that my concerns have been addressed to satisfactory level. Both the non-free files are used to depict fairly different things. So coordinators can considered this a pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks — Pass

Version reviewed — this. Have randomly selected these references for spot-checking by a random number selector:

Ref#133 — OK (link)
Ref#87 — OK (link)
Ref#57 — Mostly OK, but which part of the source cited that "she is allowed be as exaggerated"? (link)
- "I can go as over the top as I want"
Ref#75 — OK (link)
Ref#10 — OK (link)
Ref#77 — OK (link)
Ref#85 — OK (link)
Ref#152 — OK (link)
Ref#164 — OK (link)
Ref#62 — OK (link)
Ref#39 — OK (link)
Ref#139 — Mostly OK, but which part of the source cited that [t]he "series had a triple-digit year-to-year growth"? (link)
- If you scroll down to "Year-to-Year Program Highlights (all times ET)" and look at the bit regarding MLP:FIM, it says that the growth for demographics are: "Kids 2-11 (297%), Kids 6-11 (+83%), Adults 18-49 (+226%), Women 18-49 (+1033%), Adults 25-54 (+231%), Women 25-54 (+1067%), Persons 2+ (+173%), and Households (+131%)", which is triple-digit; I noticed, however, that there was also quadruple-digit growth so I've added that to the article.
Ref#41 — OK, but I doubt the source's reliability (link)
- Just a note on this source that it's from the show's creator, Lauren Faust

With almost all the source verifying the prose, just some clarification needed at few points. Rest, I think, the spot-checking here is mostly fine. Though, this is not a complete source review. Someone needs to check for Formatting and Reliability of sources. Ping me if I need to do more spot-checks, but much of it appears all right. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the spot-checks, Kavyansh.Singh. I have responded to the above. Pamzeis (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators may consider this one a pass for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Nearly three weeks in and this nomination has garnered no general supports. Unless considerable further progress is made towards a consensus to support by the three week mark I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not gathering any momentum and so I am going to archive it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2021 [3].

Crash Bandicoot (video game)

Nominator(s): Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the highest selling video games for the PlayStation, a rare Western game to see commercial success in Japan, the title that put Naughty Dog on the map, and the beginning of an eponymous series that has made the titular Tasmanian critter a household name. This article was promoted to GA a decade ago, and after spending the last few years getting back in the groove following a lengthy hiatus, I finally decided to man up and make my first FA candidate out of it. I dedicated the good chunk of January sprucing the page up and trying to meet those formidable standards, wringing any and all sources I could find. The subsequent peer review proved reassuring, but seeing how this is my very first FAC, further input through this process is naturally welcome. Hoping for the best, Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose on images~~. This article has a lot of non-free images, which presents a concern wrt

WP:NFCC#3. Additionally, the fair-use rationales are generally minimal, meaning that there is little in the way of justification for use of all of these. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nikkimaria: The images in the 'Marketing and release' section seemed the least necessary, so went ahead and removed those. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good first step, but the FURs should still be strengthened. (Also, as a secondary issue, images generally should not use fixed px size). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Spruced up the non-free rationales for the cover and character development art the best that I could, and removed all size parameters. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements still needed. For example, the lead image is missing information about who is believed to be the copyright holder, and the purpose of use statement remains minimal. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Taken care of. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:28, 2 October 021 (UTC)

Okay. I've struck my oppose but would still suggest additional work on strengthening the purpose of use fields in particular, as they are key to justifying the need for non-free materials. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I am assuming that your striking your oppose does not constitute a pass; is that correct? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - IMO the FURs would benefit from additional elaboration. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Is a gameplay video really necessary? A screenshot is, I accept, typical, but is a non-free video needed in this case?

The video was a recommendation from the peer review on the basis that a short section of the gameplay in action would better serve the purpose of illustrating the mechanics and presentation. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "Go West" source? I think it's a student paper (not a piece of peer-reviewed research), and so I'm not sure it would constitute a reliable source -- unless I'm missing something?

I would think that any document out of a major university would be considered reliable, and the paper itself is quite reasonably sourced in itself as the endnotes section would indicate. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look through the Google Scholar results? There are some potentially interesting hits. There were some interesting tidbits in this and this, for instance -- but maybe those details are already in the article!

The first link doesn't appear to have anything relating to the game, and whatever reference there is in the second seems to be in an unavailable page. Anyway, I've already scoured through Google Books, and just about all the relevant resources I can see have been incorporated. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's useful -- I'm afraid I can't commit to a full review, but I'm pleased to see this here. I spent a lot of time on these games as a kid (and was then shocked by the difficulty of the remakes...). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ProtoDrake

Support: Looking through this article, I can't find anything particularly major. While I wouldn't put citations in the middle of sentences without commas personally, the rest of the article seems all right. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coorditator comment

More than three weeks in and this nomination has only attracted a single general support. Unless further indications of a consensus to promote appear within the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be gathering any momentum, so I am archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2021 [4].

Proseminar in Homophile Studies

Nominator(s): Urve (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Louis Crompton's controversial 1970 class, the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, one of the first classes about homosexuality in the United States. While most Nebraska residents probably didn't have strong feelings about the class, one state senator—Terry Carpenter—was intensely opposed to it, and tried his hand at banning the class. He failed. After a successful GA nomination with comments by GhostRiver, a PR with comments by DanCherek, and a private review by a subject-matter expert, I feel this is FA worthy. Comments welcome. Thanks, Urve (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dracophyllum

One image that is apparently own work – not impossible that it is though. Reverse image search turns up nothing. So Support as to images. Draco phyllum 03:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it, thank you. Quite nice we could have a Wikimedian take a picture of Crompton so long ago. Urve (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. The article is a slog to the read. The prose is convoluted and rambling in places. I'm having to read every sentence twice. I think it needs more work. Take this sentence for example:

"As for the students, registration in the course totaled 34 undergraduate and graduate enrollees, mostly students of anthropology and sociology; exactly half of them were women."

Would probably read better like this:

"Thirty-four students enrolled on the course, mostly undergraduates and graduates studying anthropology and sociology, half of whom were women."

And this sentence, for example:

"Otherwise, while six members of the NIMH task force on homosexuality made "strong written endorsements" of the course, and Magrath compared some reactions to the course to World War I-era policies that forbade the teaching of any language other than English in public schools, state Senator Terry Carpenter from Scottsbluff was strongly opposed to the course", is too long and has to be re-read to be understood.

-Graham Beards (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham Beards. It's good to hear that my writing isn't working for everyone and that I can improve. I've made some adjustments, which includes a bit of restructuring re: Carpenter, to help aid in readability. Is this an improvement? Anything else that gives you pause? Urve (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an improvement, but sadly we are not there yet. The article reads like an essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. I think you would benefit from reading

WP:PLUSING

- I saw a fused participles, which are unprofessional. Here's a few more problems:

"In the fall semester of 1970, professor Louis Crompton and others taught the Proseminar in Homophile Studies at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, one of the first courses in the United States about homosexuality." You need to repeat upfront the subject of the article (which is usually a definition). I suggest something like, "The Proseminar in Homophile Studies was taught in the fall 1970 at the University of Nebraska by professor Louis Crompton and others. It was one of the first courses in the United States about homosexuality"
Spot the redundancies here, "The course attempted to understand homosexuality through interdisciplinary means, using many disciplines within the social sciences and the humanities." and here "Crompton was listed as an instructor for the course".
Here, " It was cross-listed between the psychology, anthropology, sociology, and English departments" , "cross-listed" is jargon.
Fused participles; "with the board of regents saying" and " with Cole acting" and "with Crompton studying" and "with Cole responding".
Here "the hearing was alongside other sexuality-related issues", I suggest "covered" rather than "was alongside".
This sounds like jargon, "Cole offered public comment at the legislature".
"Spot the redundancy "The course was only offered for one semester in its initial form" (try "initially").
Here: "they suggested that other universities devise their homosexuality-related curricula after it." I suggest, "based on it".
This sounds like slang, "he was not tapped to become"

— Graham Beards (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done a first pass for redundancy, but will keep at it with that page's tips. Can you speak more to your concerns about this reading as an essay? I am too close to the prose to read it objectively, so some pointers from someone with a better grasp on prose would be appreciated. Urve (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is not supposed to be the venue for this amount of work on articles (that's for

Peer Review) and I am reluctant to continue here. I suggest you withdraw the nomination, work at your pace away from FAC and invite editors new to the article to comment. You can re-nominate when you think all the issues have been addressed. Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't know what the issues are if, after I ask what you mean, I am not told. Since this is not helpful, @WP:FAC coordinators: withdraw, please. Urve (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urve, I'll action this withdrawal request. For now I think it would be beneficial to, as you say, keep at it with writing guide tips, and then return to PR to try and get some more eyes on the article before considering another nomination here. As a first-time nominator you'd also be eligible for the FAC Mentoring Scheme -- if that appeals you could even try that first and if a mentor comes forward, be guided by them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2021 [5].

1982 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the 1982 entry into the World Snooker Championship. Steve Davis has ascended to the top of the pyramid, and won the 1981 event. He's the favourite, but ends up winning just one frame as he loses 1-10 in his opening round match. Six-time champion Ray Reardon and controversial figure Alex Higgins contest the final, with Higgins coming out on top, his second title. This was the first event to have the modern style event, with 32 participants, sixteen of which coming through a qualification round. (the year prior it was a 24-man tournament). It's a great event, and I look forward to your comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on a point of order, I assume this is a joint nomination with BennyOnTheLoose...? I will be back for a review in due course! Cheers. — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose is not FA standard. Here are some examples:

Confusing repetition "a pre-tournament qualification tournament"
- So I've changed the second tournament to "event". It was a qualification event for 48 participants over two rounds to be one of 16 qualifiers, and took place before the event. Let me know if there is a better wording for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong tense "Knowles claimed that he has gone to a nightclub until 2:00 am the previous night"
- Changed to "had" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This lacks flow " Cliff Wilson had been taking medication for a viral infection. Suffering from chest pains, he was concerned that he was having a heart attack, but testing showed that he wasn't." When was the testing done? While he thought he was having an attack? The bit about the viral infection needs to come later, and we don't use contractions.
- I don't have much in the way of info as to when, other than saying it happened after the match. BennyOnTheLoose might have some additional details. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amended the text, as Snooker Scene has a different version of what happened. I've kept what both sources agree on. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Vison aids" why not just say his glasses?
- Well, he never used to play in glasses, til he got his iconic glasses a year later. This is to say he didn't go and get another pair of contacts, or wear glasses Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy "He trailed Silvino Francisco 2–7 Francsisco"
- Typo has been fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here " John Virgo defeated Mike Hallett 10–4 after leading 7–2, Jim Donnelly was the first Scottish player to play at the Crucible" where's the logical flow?
- Reordered Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make sense "and after Donnelley had won taken further frames"
- I have reworded this Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is not clear who "their" refers to "Terry Griffiths, who had become the bookmakers favourite to win following the elimination of Steve Davis, led 4–2 but finished their first session behind 4–5 to Willie Thorne"
- I'm a bit surprised that this isn't clear, their session would be the first session of the match between the two players, but I've reworded regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fluked a brown" needs more explanation
- I have added a glossary link for this (both items). We could say that he received some luck or similar to explain it a bit better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fused participle "The scores were also level at 13–13, with Higgins scoring only nine points across two frames" (..and Higgins scored...)

I think the article would benefit from a copy-edit by someone new to the article. -Graham Beards (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what
WP:PLUSING is, I've taken a decent look into it, but I can't get my head around what the issue actually is. Happy to change these individual points if there is better wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I've done a thorough copyedit on the article (as I always intended to), I can see what you mean, but I think an oppose is a bit strong. Maybe you could give it another look through and see if you are happier? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought
  Tony's explanation
  was quite clear on the problem. You have used this construction a lot in the article:

"He moved to 9–7 ahead,[28] with Mountjoy then winning three consecutive frames."

"The scores were also level at 13–13, with Higgins scoring only nine points across two frames as White moved into a 15–13 lead, two frames ahead with three to play."

"A break of 83 in the first frame of the second session saw Charlton level the match at 4–4, with Reardon then moving a frame ahead again with a break of 98."

"In the third session, the score went to 8–8 with Reardon then compiling breaks of 94 and 77 to win the next two."

"Reardon was 6–4 ahead when he missed potting a pink, with Higgins going on to win that frame."

"This was reduced as Reardon won frames 22 and 23, the session ending with Higgins leading 13–12."

"With Higgins showing signs of nerves"

These constructions occur often in spoken English but can lead to ambiguity in writing. Professional writers avoid them. In all the years Brian Boulton was contributing his numerous FAs, I never saw him use one. In my view, they are a sign of amateurish writing. You may disagree. Graham Beards (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All my examples have not been addressed ("but later testing showed that he wasn't). It would be best if you answered (or contested) my points individually. You have gone on to add another
fused participle here "with Reardon then compiling breaks of 94 and 77 to win", which implies that you are happy using them—and that's OK as long as you say why you disagree with me. Graham Beards (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- Sure, no issues, I'll respond above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This three weeks in and has attracted no supports and has an open oppose. Unless this changes quite a bit within the next day or two I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this one has certainly stalled so best archived now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2021 [6].

Your Lie in April

Nominator(s): Link20XX (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Japanese romantic drama manga series by Naoshi Arakawa. The series remains a very popular series, especially its anime adaptation, which has received more praise that the original work. This nomination is coming off of a peer review which lasted from June to October. In this review, many editors gave very helpful comments, which I have used to greatly improve the article to the state it is currently in. I feel the article is now ready for the nomination. Just want to note this is my first FA nomination so if I messed something up, please have patience. Thanks. Link20XX (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC): Nice work in improving the article ever since the GA review. I hope it becomes FA so I'll try pointing any issue I find. In response, I requested a peer review for Psycho-Pass: the Movie if you can commment there too if possible. Well, leaving some comments:[reply]

Lead:

*"The story follows a young pianist named Kо̄sei Arima, who loses the ability to hear the piano after his mother's death" For a lead that feels kinda short. Considering this is a premise-like area it feels like it could briefly expanded like you did in the anime episode list. Based on what I read, a mention of Kaori Miyazono's character is very important for the premise.

Should the OVAs be briefly commented?

Plot

Try being as objective as possible. "Tsubaki and Watari, until one day, a girl changes everything." turn into something like "A young woman/teenager generates a major impact"

". She invited Kosei to play at a Gala with her. "Remember to write fiction in present tense unless for some reason it is meant to be written in retrospective like a flashback.

Characters

It's well written but like the plot events that happen across the narrative need to be written in present like "Kaori first met Kōsei when she asked Tsubaki to set her up with Watari." to "Kori meets Kosei when asking"

Development

Nodame Cantabile needs wikilink and italics

Becareful with the grammar. The first paragraph uses "he" many times. Try other uses like "The author" and Arakawa for variety.

The anime section seems to have important information about the opening and ending themes. Maybe try connecting them to the media section would be useful.

Manga

Add the volume or format next to tankobon to make it easier to understand.

Can you provide a premise about the spin-off Coda?

Anime

I'm not sure if it's possible but maybe the creation of the anime section could be moved here.

Give a brief premise of the OVA.

Reception

~~In some cases you are writing critics but such information is backed up by one single source. Are there more sources you can provide for this generalizations?~~

That's all. Ping me once you think you solved this issues please.Tintor2 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: I completed most of your comments. I admit, I'm not sure what you mean by tying the anime development and media sections together. I would also oppose moving the information in development on the anime to the media as I feel it is better represented in the development section. Link20XX (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Giving my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Aoba47

I am very happy to see a manga article in the FAC space. I will do my best to help. I am somewhat familiar with manga, but I have never heard of this one. My comments are below:

Addressed comments

I would include
ALT text
for the infobox image.
I am uncertain if musical belongs the genre parameter. I am not sure if the genre parameter is specifically for the manga itself or would also encompass adaptations? It does seem off to me to have it there, because it made me wonder how a manga could be a musical.
I am uncertain about the structure of the lead. Shouldn't the third paragraph (which is about the series creation and reception) come before the second one (which is about the adaptations)? It just seems out of order to me.
The lead does not really address the shōnen aspect. In the lead for The Heart of Thomas, it has the following part, Originally serialized in Shūkan Shōjo Comic, a weekly manga magazine publishing shōjo manga (manga aimed at young and adolescent women). I was wondering if it would be beneficial to add something similar for this part, was serialized in Kodansha's Monthly Shōnen Magazine.
For this part, been adapted into a stage play, a light novel, and a musical, I would unlink stage play and musical as a majority of readers would already be familiar with the concept and having too many links takes away from the ones that are more useful.
I have two comments about this part, and views the world in monochrome, without any flair or color. I am not really sure what you mean by "flair" in this context, but either way, I would just remove the without any flair or color part completely as it is already explained by the prior monochrome bit so this comes across as repetitive.
For this part, often spends time with his friends, Tsubaki and Watari, I would use the characters' full names upon their first mention in the summary.
This part, until one day, a girl changes everything., seems rather sensational and I would instead go for a more objective summary.
In the plot summary, you introduce Kaori as fourteen, but do we know how old Kōsei is? That would be helpful to know if possible.
I have two comments about this sentence, She invited Kosei to play at a Gala with her. Why is Gala capitalized? Also, why is there a shift to past tense here? It is not immediately clear when she invited him.
For this part, Kaori fails to show up at the Gala, I would say Kaori does not show up at the Gala. The fails to part seems unnecessary and not the best phrasing in this context.
For this part, in the hope of motivating her. The duet motivates Kaori, I would avoid having motivating/motivates in such close context.
I must admit that I was initially confused when I first read this part, She also reveals that she had been in love with Kōsei since she was five, as I thought they met later. The summary later clarifies that she attended one of his concerts, but I think it would be better to mention this here as their connection is not particularly clear to me.
I have a question about this part, who also has limerent feelings towards Kōsei. Does the manga or any of the sources use the word limerent? It is just not a common word, at least from my experience, so it seems rather out of place here.
I have two related questions. You use "later" in two parts of the summary (and is later discharged. and Kōsei later frames this picture.). Was a more specific time given for either of these instances?

These are my comments for the infobox, lead, and the "Plot" section. I will stop here and will continue my review once everything has been addressed. I hope these comments are helpful!

Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@
Aoba47: Thanks for the comments! I have addressed all of them except for the one regarding "later". I re-read the manga and watched the anime in both the original Japanese and English dub and none of them gave a specific time length for either event. Link20XX (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for addressing everything so far. I will continue my review today. Thank you for double-checking about the time frame. It is not uncommon for stories to not really be explicit about their timelines, but I just wanted to make sure.
Aoba47 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

This part, until a young girl generates a major impact, reads awkwardly. I would just remove this part, as the next sentence talks about how he meets Kaori and the plot summary already makes it very clear that she has a major impact on him.

In this part, but is highly favored by audiences that hear her playing, I'd remove the "that hear her playing" bit as it seems unnecessary.

For this part, Kaori was his love interest, which makes Kōsei jealous., I do not think "love interest" really works in this context. It is more of a term to describe a fictional character. I would instead clarify what their relationship was in-universe (i.e. was she his girlfriend, a crush, etc.)?

This is more of a clarification question. When I first read this part, and often beats him for small mistakes, I was curious if any of the sources talk about how Kōsei's mom physically abuses him? This seems like a rather big plot point, so I was wondering if there was any further coverage on this element.

For this part, he entered a one-shot comic, shouldn't it just be he entered a one-shot? From my understanding he is entering a manga and not a comic, and there is a difference between the two.
I would avoid one-word quotes, like in saying he was "bored" of, as they are not particular beneficial to the reader and actually take away from other quotes. I would paraphrase this. You could go with something like saying he was tired of instead.
I would avoid the repetition of Arakawa and music manga in this sentence: Despite Arakawa's previous music manga pitch getting turned down, Arakawa eventually settled on a music manga.
This sentence, Arakawa was unsure about the ending of his work, but the director of the anime, Kyōhei Ishiguro, stated that he liked the ending so Arakawa did not change it., also feels rather repetitive and reads awkwardly to me.
The sentence structures for the "Manga" subsection of the "Development" section is quite repetitive. A majority of the sentences start with Arakawa/He..., and I was wondering if there would be a way to vary this sentence structure more to keep the readers engaged.
I would remove File:The scene in the OP1 of "Your Lie in April".jpg. The bridge is not discussed in that section so it does not serve a clear purpose and seems more decorative than anything.
This sentence, Saitō offered the role of director to Kyōhei Ishiguro because he had previously worked with Ishiguro on the seventh episode of Wandering Son, where Ishiguro left a strong impression on Saitō., repeats the names quite a bit. Would there be a way to avoid this?
Have you considered putting a request for this article to be copy-edited by the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? I am only asking this because as I read through the article, I am noticing areas where the prose could be improved. I am uncertain if the prose is on the level of a FA at the moment. Don't get me wrong, you have done a lot of great work.

These are my comments through the "Development" section. I hope this is helpful!

Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again, thanks for the comments! I addressed most of your small comments. As for your question about Kōsei's mom, there is some coverage of her when it was brought up in the Anime News Network interview with Arakawa. As for the image, perhaps it should be moved down to the anime section, where real locations are discussed? I admit that I would like the article to have an image other than the anime logo and manga cover, so I may be biased a bit. As for the guild, I could make a request but that would take a bit so I would rather have the rest of the article be good to go. Link20XX (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. It is not encouraged to a GOCE copy-edit request at the same time as a FAC. I was more so curious if you considered a copy-edit in the past (whether it is by the GOCE or a separate copy-editor). I'd still encourage you to remove the image. I agree having images in an article is ideal, but they should have some purpose and not be purely decorative. While the "Anime" subsection mentions several locations, this bridge is not name in the prose so there is really no reason to have this image here. As a reader, I frankly found the image more confusing as the bridge is not discussed in the prose so it just comes across as some random image of a random location.
Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I have noticed the edits to the "Manga" subsection of the "Development" section (i.e. the inclusion of "the author" in multiple instances), and I think that makes the prose worse. From what I am reading so far, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a FA right now. It is a solid good article, but I think a copy-edit and further revisions would help. I will continue to read the article tomorrow, but I am uncertain if this article is ready for a FAC if I am being completely honest.
Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I admit that copy-editting is not a strength of mine, but I will see what I can do. As for the image, I have removed it. I will see if I can find a better image but I doubt there is one. If needed, I will not be opposed to withdrawing this for the time being so more copy-edits can take place. The inclusion of "the author" was something Tintor2 suggested above. Admittedly, I am having a bit of trouble thinking of another way to refer to him other than he and Arakawa. Link20XX (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait to hear from other reviewers first before withdrawing the FAC. If you really want to include an image of one of the locations, I'd go with this one (
Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, sorry for going out of order a bit, but I just wanted to ask about this sentence, While the original manga depicts the characters in their junior high year, the film had them be in their second-year of high school instead., as it has been bothering me a bit. Shouldn't it be the character in
Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I admit I am fairly busy at the moment so I probably won't be able to do much for a bit, though I will try to give the entire article another lookover and see what I can do soon. As for the small correction, I have done it. Link20XX (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am going to oppose this nomination as I think the prose needs further work to be a FA level. The article is a solid good article, but I believe more work outside of the FAC process is needed. I have a few quick comments about the "Reception" section below:

For this sentence, Others, such as Rebecca Silverman from Anime News Network, were more critical and thought the plot was not as emotional as Arakawa intended it to be., you mention multiple critics, but only the Rebecca Silverman citation is included so the "others" is not supported.
This is also true for the following sentences, (Many critics praised the plot of the adaptation, with Chris Beveridge from The Fandom Post stating "plainly said, [the series] moved me", others calling the series a masterpiece in storytelling., and Others noted that the plot may not be emotional to every viewer). These sentences all claim that multiple critics have this perception, but there are only supported by one citation/critical review.

This is just my opinion though so if you would like to keep the FAC up that is up to you. It may be best to wait and hear back from other editors, as I fully admit that I am not the best reviewer out there. Apologies for the oppose.

Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The reception section is certainly something I need to work on as well. Anyway, I would like to withdraw this nomination for now. I will work on getting this copyedited to the best of my ability and even asking others to help as well. Thanks for the comments and when I re-nominate this at some point in the future, I hope you will give more advice. Link20XX (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- okay thanks Link20XX, I'll close this and you can bring back to FAC after two weeks, or when you've completed your improvements, whichever is longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2021 [7].

SpaceX Starship

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plaid speed!!! - Spaceballs, probably

This article is about Starship, a fully reusable rocket which is in development by SpaceX. It describes technical, operational and cultural aspect of Starship, as well as many criticisms to the vehicle and development. This article also briefly mention Starship's development history as well. It has been expanded and reformed from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive1 with a much more comprehensive Operation section, as well as criticisms to the system, and has undergone a huge peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive1. If you know how the article can be improved, please reply and I will resolve it as soon as possible. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose by Urve

While there has been substantial movement toward high quality sourcing since the last nomination, I am still quite concerned about text-source integrity. So, unless this can be attended to (and it will take a good amount of effort), I oppose promotion on sourcing. Version reviewed, some comments may touch on prose but that's not something I can competently speak to in general

Neither fn 5 or fn 6 support the general claim that Starship is composed of 304L stainless steel; 5 makes no mention, 6 only makes the claim for SN8

Moved fn5 to the first sentence, change fn6 to [8] that mentions switching from 301 to 304L. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

The resultant gas quickly moves, and the engine nozzle redirects it to produce thrust. The Raptor Vacuum variant is equipped with a nozzle extension to increase its specfic impulse in the vacuum of space. - unsourced

Sourced! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Super Heavy booster's primary goal - not stated as a primary goal in either fn 9 or fn 10; this speed has a connotation of being a limitation (not a goal?) by Musk in fn 10

Fixed to When launch, Super Heavy booster accelerates ... Mach 9 speed is not a limitation, it is a boon for Super Heavy to land without shielding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I don't know what a "sea-level optimized Raptor" is at this point, but that description is not in fn 11 or 12; 11 says up to 32, 12 says up to 33, so that much is OK

^ sea-level optimization is supported in a separate source so that much is fine, but what this means should be explained when the term is first introduced Urve (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Finding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

The booster is topped with a stage adapter not in fn 13 or 14; doubt it matters from a prose level, though, since we can just say they are attached and avoid the unnecessary words

Changed to On top of the booster, the Starship spacecraft is attached. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

After separation, the Starship spacecraft will accelerate itself to orbit and perform mission tasks and objectives - not in fn 15

Added [9]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

composite overwrapped pressure vessels - not in fn 16

Removed, no reliable source is found CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

and three for the vacuum of space - paraphrasing of this sentence is too close to the source

Changed to three for vacuum operation CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Positioned above are... - don't see this description in fn 18

Added [10] CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

On top of the tanks is the payload section houses a liquid oxygen header tank and payload - fn 19 speaks to the header tank but the payload is not there

Added [11]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

In the Starship crewed variant, the payload bay will house cabins and other facilities - not supported by fn 20, but the other sentences seem to be supported... interestingly, they also speak to using starship as a space debris cleaner, may be worthy of mention

Added the space debris thingy and [12]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"aft" and "forward" are redundant because being at the top/front means aft in (space)ship terminology. unless I am missing something, which I may be. anyway, adequately supported in what I see

Should keep it there for people who don't know what is aft and forward. They are also terms coined by SpaceX. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

The windward side of the spacecraft is covered by a heat shield made from hexagon tiles - fn 10 just says these are being tested

Replaced with [13].

This brings me to a concern about article in general: Are we trying to describe the intended final version of Starship, or the several prototypes which have already launched and will continue to launch? We are mixing around descriptors -- some for the final one, some for the current one (for example, some ships have three raptors when launched, but the final design will have six, according to one of the sources) -- but there's no accompanying textual disclaimer about to which it applies

I describes the final version of Starship as of SpaceX plan in October 2021. SpaceX is ridiculously fast, so it is hard to know what is their final design. Added a sentence for disclaimer. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I assume good faith on fn 22 because I don't want to watch it

Confirmed to be accurate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

minor point: likely to be the first site to launch Starship to orbit - fn 28 says that it's the current plan. there may be a distinction between something being planned and something being likely (I dunno if that's the case or not); either way, suggest changing to 'planned'

It is planned. Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

fn 25 cannot support the "As of October 2021" claim because it is from January

Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

minor point: fn 34 says it has landed on drone ships, not that it might in the future - unless I miss something (didn't read it all)

It is planned, not have landed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

letting the booster's grid fins touch down on them - don't know what this means (what is "them" referring to?)

The catching arms catch the booster by letting the grid fins to touch down on them. Don't know how to phrase it though CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

didn't read "Future variants" section or beyond

I think these demonstrate the extent of my concerns, all only being in the first two subsections. I am separately concerned about

criterion 1e being fulfilled with the major changes that regularly occur, often daily or several times a day. I can return later for more comments, but having to read dozens of articles and finding that many don't verify the accompanying text is difficult - it's harder to figure out what a source doesn't say than what it does. If my comments have been helpful, I have an open peer review here. Urve (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Urve: Thank you so much on reviewing the sources! It is really hard to know what is missing in the sources when you have +100 of them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Hurricane Noah

@CactiStaccingCrane: Here's two more unsourced ones I thought I should point out. Just a tip as I saw your comment above about not knowing what the sources lack, it becomes easier to know more about your sources the longer you spend working with them. I have found it's better to work more slowly on something than to try and speed through it; there are fewer mistakes that way. I always let the sources write the article and it never does me wrong. Keep in mind that others will expect you to know everything inside and out since you are the nominator. Noah^Talk 03:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I should get into habit of writing the source down then :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The engine is cooled by circulating the fuel around the outside of the fuel chamber, which also preheats the mixture.

Source added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Verified test articles will launch in different flight paths, depending on their objectives.

Not unsourced, the list of test articles have flown in different path (hop, 10km flight), and this is not

WP:SYNTHESIS. CactiStaccingCrane (talk

)

It still has to have a source at the end of the line backing it up. Regardless of what other supported text states, we can't leave other sentences unsupported. Noah^Talk 12:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The account uploading the video for FN25 is not that of a reputable expert/agency. Noah^Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit of relevant scholarly sources out there that aren't included. For example, I saw one related to future landing sites on Mars. Noah^Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the relatively recent flurry of additions and large changes (unrelated to FAC), I would say this article is unstable and fails 1e. I also see there is an ongoing dispute resolution related to content in this article, which further emphasizes that. Considering there's only 5 books and journals here and there are quite a few more with relevant content, the article does not meet 1c either. I'm not convinced this article is well-researched with the amount of scholarly research out there. I feel I have no choice but to oppose this nomination given my above reasons. Noah^Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane:@WP:FAC coordinators: I am recommending this article be withdrawn until such time it is stable and there is a general consensus for what should be included in it. Considering there is currently a dispute resolution open regarding whether or not a section should exist within the article, this is far from stable. Noah^Talk 23:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The dispute resolution happened before this article is nominated for FAC, so I couldn't do very much at it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that there is not a consensus to promote this article, so I am archiving the nomination to allow the areas identified to be worked on off-FAC. The usual two week hiatus will apply, but I look forward to seeing the article here again in an improved state. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2021 [14].

Milorad Ekmečić

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a change of pace for me. Ekmečić was a Yugoslav and Bosnian Serb historian with a previously distinguished (if slightly controversial) academic career who "went national" during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, and was one of a group of prominent Yugoslav historians who eschewed the standards of international scholarship and concentrated exclusively on sectarian myths during the period of conflict in the former Yugoslavia, resulting in the production of what has been described by several scholars of the period as "pseudohistory". He was also an advisor to Radovan Karadžić (later convicted as a war criminal) during the Bosnian War, and a co-founder of Karadžić's party in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the radical nationalist Serb Democratic Party. The article went through GAN and Milhist A-Class review last year. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Milorad_Ekmečić.jpg is missing a fair-use tag, and the rationale should be expanded. Is the copyright holder known? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria. Done, and no. It may be Vreme, but equally it could have just been lifted from an academic page of a uni or academy - the website doesn't make a claim about the photo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've swapped the tag for a different one. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There is far too much focus on negative aspects of his career.
There is almost zero text regarding why his body of work matters and what he achieved as a scholar during his research, which led to several significant national awards. How can we have a FA without anything of

note about "30 good years" of his career?

Highly reliable "Vreme" magazine calls Ekmecic "notable representative of Serbian critical school". [15]
Street is named after him, it's not "proposed". Please do your research.
There is a 272 pages book titled "Pečat Milorada Ekmečića" (Seal/imprint of Milorad Ekmečić) which covers

his life and work in great details. It is no used nor even mentioned here.

Work by Christian Axboe Nielsen can not be used to give a general overiw of his work. She is more focused on politics in her work and is not a scholar of note. Ekmecic has more citations and greater bibliography. That aside, we need far better and stronger sources in order to present her view in Wiki voice.
Ekmečić was buried at the Alley of Distinguished Citizen
Many of his interesting views about history and geopolitics are not reprsented. In hist interview for Pečat Ekmečić, a historian and uni. professor for 40 years makes some great observations, claims and notes about history. For example - he claims that there is very little chance for WWIII and explains why. That is just an example, the point is - being adviser for Karadžić is important but his scholary work is far more important.
Claiming that he produces "pseudohistory" lacks definitive reliable sources, sorry.
According to the Serbian historian Olivera Milosavljević, Ekmečić believed that the Serbian nation "must unite to a higher degree than it is now. The rest of Yugoslavia, which would add Serbian parts from Croatia, as a separate body, is one of the closest solutions" Could you provide the quote in Serbian?
Check more on his scholary work here.
BU professor writes about his body of works and gives a possitve assesement here.
All in all, very far from Wikipedia's best work and neutral point of view. MareBG (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

I reviewed this at ACR, so I will recuse to review it again, with my expectations appropriately raised. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @WP:FAC coordinators: can I withdraw this please? I wasn't aware of the bio mentioned above (I'm not sure of its quality, and the reliability of the author and publisher, but not having even examined it isn't good enough for FA). I don't accept quite a few of the above comments by MareBG are accurate, but that is moot for the moment, because it will take me too long to obtain a copy of the bio, and as my ability to read Cyrillic is woeful, once I've got the book it will take quite some time to work through it. I'll also have to do some searching for reviews etc of the book to help determine its quality so I know what sort of content I can use it for. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. For the avoidance of doubt, a two week pause will not apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2021 [16].

Nonmetal

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the right half of a fundamental distinction in chemistry namely between metal and nonmetal chemical elements.

I referred the article for peer review after a less than stellar experience the first time round at FAC. The peer review experience far exceed my expectations, with seven reviewers participating over two months. The article benefited tremendously.

I feel it now meets all current FA expectations.

Along the way I learnt a lot more about the subject matter and the FAC process.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much improved from the last time we were here. I do see some places that I'm not sure what source the information comes from, especially the table "Shared uses of nonmetallic elements". (t · c) buidhe 05:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you buidhe; I nearly missed your contribution. Sandbh (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for the table, "Shared uses of nonmetallic elements" are given in the accompanying text. Nick D raised some concerns about four tables appearing to contain unreferenced information and I'm addressing this in their section of this page. Do you have any other concerns about a lack of source information? Sandbh (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello buidhe. I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to review my recent response to your comment above? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the tables "Some cross-subclass physical properties", "Some cross-subclass chemical properties", and "Shared uses of nonmetallic elements" are verifiable. Some quick spot checks did not allow me to locate the info in the body (which is not necessarily a good idea as you want to avoid excessive duplication). For example, the row "cryogenics and refrigerants / H, He, N, O, F and Ne". If you're citing individual cells I would expect to see a source cited for every cell to make it more clear what source supports each info. Another option is to list references for each row in a separate column on the right, but that only works if the entire row is supported by only 2-3 sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Given the number of images and tables, there are some layout issues throughout. Suggest removing pull quotes and reducing number of images.
Don't use fixed px size
An_acrylic_cube_specially_prepared_for_element_collectors_containing_an_ampoule_filled_with_liquefied_xenon: does the uploader have the right to release this image?
File:Graphite2.jpg: second source link is dead
File:EN_values_of_chalcogens.png should include a source for the data presented
File:Die_chemischen_elemente_cl.jpg: licensing tags given appear to conflict - to what does NC-ND apply?
File:Kansas_Helium_Marker.jpg: what's the copyright status of the marker?
File:Airbornelaserturret.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Argon.jpg
File:Joseph_Wright_of_Derby_The_Alchemist.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria. Sandbh (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed/relocated some of the images. Pull out quotes kept since the early ones illustrate some important concepts, and the last one nicely fills a space vacated by an image.
Removed all the fixed px sizes for images
For the acrylic cube image, the uploader Rasiel Suarez is the General Manager at Luciteria Science, who make such cubes, so I'd say he has image release rights. He's uploaded several other images of elements in lucite cubes.

Removed the dead link for the graphic image. There's a version of it in the Internet Archive, however it's identical to the image at the first link.
Added an EN data source
Removed File:Die_chemischen_elemente_cl.jpg given the licensing tags conflict

Removed historical marker for helium discovery image
Updated the source for the Airborne laser image

Argon.jpg as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long discussion from the editor who took the image and uploaded it (2007) here. The licensing details, as granted by that editor, look fine. Since they are no longer active as a wp editor I’ve added a link to the 2007 FPC discussion. Will this suffice?

Different image, different uploader - File:Argon.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayback Machine has a copy of the image, here. Clicking on the image, there is a comment under image properties saying, "Access: publicly available". Going back to the source page, here, William Viker says "FYI, I'd like you all to add a little copyright statement that makes it clear that theese pictures "belongs" to me. Add something like: PHOTO: William Viker [email protected] smile: then it's all fine." Our image summary page, here, says the author is William Viker, and the permission field says, "Copyrighted image that an be used as long and attribution is provided". It all seems to be OK. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That second link redirects to the homepage for me - is there another link? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20070311060741/http://my.opera.com/devblog/blog/2006/11/03/server-room-grand-opening Sandbh (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a {{PD-US-expired}} tag for the alchemist image

--- Sandbh (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , Nikkimaria is this one ok now? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not thrilled with layout, but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh FA, and made some adjustments to the nonmetal article layout. I also removed one quote box and two tables. Does that look better? Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Somewhat. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Materialscientist

~~Why do you capitalize names (of elements, but not only) in tables? This does not seem necessary at all.~~
Many references do have free text sources, such as PMC; I've added some, but many more can be added.
Efforts should be spent to reduce the code length, which is much too long (>175 kilobytes), considering that there is not much text in the article.
"The diamond allotrope of carbon is clearly nonmetallic, being translucent and having a relatively poor electrical conductivity" - electrical conductivity of diamond is not poor, it is hardly measurable at ambient conditions, unless diamond is heavily doped (e.g. with boron).
"Under sufficiently high pressures, just over half of the nonmetallic elements that are semiconductors or insulators,[n 59] starting with phosphorus at 1.7 GPa, have been observed to form metallic allotropes" -
WP:REDFLAG
(very strong statement that should be properly cited or removed). This research area is very active, and many new metallic phases are being reported every year; "just over half" is probably plain wrong.
"Since there are 118 known elements, as of September 2021, the nonmetals are outnumbered several times." - outnumbered by what? Ok, by something, you can fix that, yet this phrase is meaningless. Virtually any class of elements is outnumbered by all the elements of the Periodic Table. Materialscientist (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"iodine is known in amorphous form" - a useless comment, as all solid elements exhibit amorphous forms. What is so special about iodine in this regard? Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I mention iodine as the common perception, it seems to me from reading the literature, is that allotropy among the nonmetallic elements is confined to groups 13 to 16. Looking further, Te and Tang (2008, p. 194), as a secondary source, note that (I₂)_n chains occur in amorphous iodine, hence iodine too is a catenator. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I see no answer to my point that all solid elements do occur in amorphous state, and that iodine is not exceptional in this regard. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The section concerned is about allotropy among the nonmetallic elements. I mention a-I not for the fact that it is amorphous, but for the fact that it is an allotrope of I.

Thank you for your interest Materialscientist.

Caps: I use caps since they are used in the table examples in the MOS, and elsewhere in wp.
Negative, they are not used in the table examples, at least not in the form I mention (comma-separated caps). Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any of these in the nonmetal article. Could you please provide an example? Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See, e.g., the table titled "Some cross-subclass physical properties" that uses "Alkali, Alkaline earth, Lanthanide", etc., etc., ad nauseam, in this table and in the table below titled "Some cross-subclass chemical properties". Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Caps now removed; they were added by another editor so long ago, that I'd forgotten about them. Sandbh (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PubMed Central etc: Done. Thank you. I checked this and was not able to find any more articles. I was surprised I could not find e.g. Zoroddu et al. 2019, "The essential metals for humans: a brief overview", Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 195. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Code length: the article runs to 10,655 words or about 16b per word. OTOH, the Barack Obama FA runs to 15,835 words and 379,000b = 24b per word. The metalloid FA article runs to 12,900 words and 245K or about 19.4b per word. The nonmetal article has 65 footnotes, 313 citations, and about 270 references that I expect would contribute to code length.

The code length is associated with the five smaller tables and three larger tables. Sandbh (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Diamond: Done. The passage now says diamond is an extremely poor electrical conductor, as per an extra citation.~~

Allotropy: The allotropy reference to "just over half" of the elements now reads, "at least half" and is supported by three citations, two from 2019 and 2020. I've added a footnote saying, "This is an active field with new metallic phases being reported every year".
Sigh .. a dummy answer with dummy references: Yousuf 1998 is from 1998; Arveson et al. 2019 is a primary ref. on S; Elatresh & Bonev 2020 is a primary ref on O. So we end up with zero recent references to confirm the fact ..

Yousef 1998, a secondary source, confirms metallization for ten elements: Si, P, S, Cl, Ge, Se, Br, Te, I, Xe. Of the nonmetallic elements that are semiconductors or insulators, that leaves ten elements: H, Ge, B, N, O, F, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Rn. The leftover elements are the semimetals C, As, Sb. Yousef goes on to consider the question of whether whether all the other elements from the upper right-hand comer of the periodic table will transform into the metallic state within an accessible range of pressure. He specifically mentions H, B, C (diamond), N, Xe in this regard.

Yousef 1998 is a 23-year-old source, and I can only repeat my statement - high-P research is a highly active field. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the metallization pressures cited by Yousef confirm that the elements concerned form metallic allotropes. That is the only binary consideration that this section is concerned with---has the nonmetal concerned being metallized under pressure or hasn't it. In this context, it does not matter that he is a 23-year old source. High-P research is for sure a highly active field. That said, to my knowledge of the literature, none of the other nonmetals I mentioned have yet been metallized.

@Sandbh: Hmm – but metallization pressure gives cited metallization pressures for all nonmetals but F and Rn? And seems like Sb metallises at high pressure too, according to this article. Double sharp (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thank you Double sharp. The extra metallization pressures in the metallization pressure article, as I recall, are theoretically predicted rather the experimentally confirmed. That is the case too, for the Sb article link you provided. While it does refer to some experimental studies, the conclusion notes metallization has not yet been achieved. Sandbh (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arveson et al. 2019, a secondary source confirming the metallization of sulfur, is thus not required and I've removed that cite, thank you.

Metallization for H has not yet been confirmed as I understand it.

There are no reports that I could find for the experimental metallization of B, N, F, Ne, Ar, Kr, or Rn.

With all due respect, see

WP:FA. For example, see this report on nitrogen [17]. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand what you mean by personal research. The section in question is about high-P metallization of nonmetallic elements. To compile it I conducted a literature search. Yousef, as a secondary source, confirmed metallization for quite a few of these elements. Metallization for O was confirmed Elatresh & Bonev, a more recent source. Both sources are cited in the article.

The Nature article reports the metallization of nitrogen under pressure and high temperature (ca. 2500 K) whereas the nonmetal article refers to metallization under pressure, rather under thermobaric conditions. The Nature article includes a phase diagram for nitrogen showing that metallization is apparently not possible in the vicinity of room temperature.

Recently synthesized "black" N, which is apparently transparent, has a reported band gap of ca. 2.2 eV.

Elatresh & Bonev 2020 is a secondary source in the sense that they cite the experimental metallization of O as reported by (1) Y. Akahama, H. Kawamura, D. Ha¨usermann, M. Hanfland and O. Shimomura, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1995, 74, 4690–4693; and (2) S. Desgreniers, Y. K. Vohra and A. L. Ruoff, J. Chem. Phys., 1990, 94, 1117–1122.

Yet it covers only one element, while we're discussing a blanket statement about an element group. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the article discusses allotropy among the nonmetallic elements. Yousef covers quite a few of these, but does not mention oxygen. Elatresh & Bonev, as a later secondary source, do.

Hence just over half the nonmetallic elements that are semiconductors or insulators, have been metallized. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue lies deeper - you write on a general subject, yet excessively use primary sources. Do use (recent) books instead.

Further on refs. Why "Allotropes[184]" ? Ref. [184] is "Addison 1964, passim" - it is 60 years old and has no page number. Allotropy has been actively studied after 1960s. Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cite Addison as a unique, as far as I know, monograph on the allotropy of the elements. There is no page number as he discusses allotropy throughout his book. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This excuse had been used on this Wiki for decades, and it never addressed the actual issue: the reader is not expected to read the whole book. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've added a page range for Addison, wherein he surveys the incidence of allotropy across the PT; and a more recent citation to Wulfsberg wherein he discusses allotropy in the p-block. Sandbh (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. of nonmetals: Done. Mention of the number of nonmetals now reads, "The nonmetals are outnumbered by the metals several times." Since distinguishing between metals and nonmetals is a fundamental aspect of chemistry, I feel this is OK as a contextual statement. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Materialscientist. I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to further review my recent responses to your comments above? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

The sourcing remains deficient for a FA:

There is an unaddressed 'citation needed tag'
Some other text in the body of the article and some of the end notes is not cited. This includes at least two paragraphs with no references at all.
The four tables appear to have large quantities of unreferenced material.

I'd also add that 65 end notes is excessive: in general, material in articles should be significant enough to be included in the body of the article, or not significant enough to be included at all. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick-D.

Citation needed tag: Done. replaced with a citation, and associated ce. Sandbh (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited text (main body): Done. All paragraphs now have citations. Sandbh (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited (endnotes): Done. There is now one footnote without a cite:

In the physical properties comparative table, Crystal structure row, the endnote says, "At point of solidification for bromine, mercury and gases", which clarifies that fluid elements need to be frozen, in order to discern their crystal structures. I feel this does not need a cite.

Too many endnotes: Done. I generally use endnotes to elaborate items which would otherwise seem to make the main body text too detailed for the general reader. At the same time, the footnotes may appeal to the specialist reader. For a technical subject, I feel this is a good way of addressing FA criterion 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Still, there may be scope to reduce the number of footnotes and I'll look at that too. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

27 of the endnotes are in tables where the end notes would otherwise take up too much room. I propose not to do anything further about these.
Endnotes in the main text are now 37. I have yet to look more closely at these. Sandbh (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 33 endnotes in tables, and 32 in the main text. For a technical article such as this I feel the number of main text notes is OK. I could incorporate some of them into the main body of the article however I feel this would reduce readability, for no real gain. Accordingly, I've changed my status marker for this item from pending to done. Sandbh (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited (four tables). Done. All information in tables is now sourced. Sandbh (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick-D. I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to review my recent responses to your comments above? Thank you.

Honing the concept

To enhance the flow of the article, I've added a ca. 200 word subsection by this name, between "2 Origin and use of term"; and "3 Physical properties". It acts as a bridge between the two sections somewhat like the noble gases bridge the halogens and the alkali metals. Sandbh (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the large number of uncited statements, a number of other basic issues and the outstanding oppose, this does not yet seem to be ready for FAC. I am archiving the nomination for the article to be further worked on. Hopefully we will see it here again, although the usual two week hiatus will apply.

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 October 2021 [18].

Tala tank

Nominator(s): Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the century old, world's largest overhead water reservoir, built by the British in Kolkata. Also, it is my first

WP:4 attempt. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggestions by Chidgk1

If water just flows one way first paragraph could be written something like:

"The Tala tank, or Tallah tank, (Bengali pronunciation: [ˈʈala tæŋk]), is a water tower in Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Construction started in 1909 and the tower was inaugurated by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in May 1911. Owned by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) the tank is fed by Palta Water Works near Barrackpore. More than 110 years after construction the tower is the world's largest overhead water reservoir, and remains the major water supplier for the city of Kolkata."

"The Tala tank covers 3–4 acres ......"

Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch a plan of the structure and ask Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop to draw it in svg
- Couldn't find any plan to refer to. Only the satellite images. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ArnabSaha: But don't you understand it well enough now to be able to sketch a plan yourself? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Chidgk1: I can and I would love to do that, but will it be reliable and as per FA rules? Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @ArnabSaha: Not sure about FA rules. But if it will not take too much of your time sketch a plan (and if your drawing is as bad as mine submit it to graphics lab to be smartened up) so that other reviewers can see it and comment on whether it is useful. For example some readers would likely be surprised about the teak, so I think it would be nice to be able to see at a glance which parts are teak. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Chidgk1:, User:Seloloving will try to make one. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 11:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Chidgk1, Due to the complexity and lack of clear photos and specs, it will be hard to draw for Seloloving :( Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @ArnabSaha: I didn't mean it had to be detailed and to scale. Just an idea of the shape and which bits are made of concrete, steel or teak - so schematic(s) would be fine. Something a child would understand. Especially because it is hard to see from the pictures. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1:, Big thanks to User:Seloloving, they made the diagram and I have added it. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 17:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use either imperial or metric first - at the moment sometimes one is first and sometimes the other (also tonnes is already metric)
- I mentioned it as per sources. Somewhere imperial is used, somewhere metric in the sources. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any more detail of "American roofing material"?
- Sadly, nope. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Security against terrorists? Maybe that is secret so you cannot write.
- The source is available publicly. So, its not a secret anymore... Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ArnabSaha: So was there anything worth adding from the source you found? ? Perhaps some of the security details were published to reassure the public after the poisoning rumors? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No other details. the source has just one line on that. Regarding the poison thing, I am searching for a highly reliable source, as also suggested by HJ Mitchell below Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an engineer but I am curious why they did not fill all the tanks completely before the cyclone arrived - maybe because repairs had not been finished?
- It was as per the calculations mainly. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future? For example is it big and high enough to help balance electricity supply and demand - by running the pumps at certain times?
- Yup Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

great so when you have finished your exams (good luck) see if you can find a source and write a sentence or 2 Chidgk1 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might you, or one of your contacts, be able to take a better photo?
- I am planning to go and capture a photo for a long time. But covid, lockdown and my exams are the hurdles Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could ask the photographer of https://www.flickr.com/photos/31998351@N04/2994653684 if they would be willing to upload it (and/or one of their 2 closer shots) to Wikimedia Commons Chidgk1 (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I messaged the photographer, but they seem inactive. In the mean time I will try to visit the tank. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus - Improve it on Openstreetmap (just shows as "building" now) and add the Wikidata identifier there -if you don't know how to do that please ask
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Sadly, unable to click a picture. Not getting time to visit the tank. One of my friend used to live there but he shifted to other place recently. Regarding future, couldnt find any repot or study on future of the tank. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 13:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else I should change to win your support? Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 13:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chidgk1, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnabSaha: Thanks very much to you and Seloloving for adding the excellent side diagram - and the measurements in feet are a nice bonus to get people wondering about the past. The article is very close to getting my support. All I want now is a simple diagram from the top. If I understand the text right this would just be the big square of the tank divided into 4 small squares. Or perhaps there are 4 small squares within a big square as perhaps the outer wall is not a tank wall? No need for subtank measurements if they are not easily available. The benefit of this is that the reader can instantly understand this subtank feature without having to read deep into the article. As I guess the subtank feature is very important to keep the water supply going if one of the 4 needs major repair? If that can be done I will support . Chidgk1 (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could "which is characterised as the world's largest overhead water reservoir" be either "which is the world's largest overhead water reservoir" or "which is claimed to be the world's largest overhead water reservoir" depending how good you think the source is? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1 Both done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 08:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work Chidgk1 (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 09:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Image licensing is fine. Hog Farm _Talk 14:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

While this has attracted some general comments and passed the important image review the nomination has been open for nearly three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next three or four days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming up to four weeks and still not much in the way of a consensus to promote. This nomination needs to attract more attention in the next day or two or it will be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you leave it a little while more as I am very close to supporting Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting - could other commentators support or oppose Chidgk1 (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the

wikicup

once this review is over.

As I did the GA review, I'm pretty happy with this one, but here's a couple points still in the way of a support

Lede

KMC is acronymmed in the lede, but not used again there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You actually use this name for "Calcutta Corporation (or KMC)", which is odd. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
world's largest overhead water reservoir is said twice in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lal Dighi at B. B. D. Bagh , - misplaced space and what are these things. Needs adjectives Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- BBD Bagh is a placed, and i have wikilinked it. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
potable water - can we just say drinking water? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
—which is now known as Indira Gandhi Water Works— do we need to know this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Right, its not needed Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
via Tala - Tala? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Wikilinked Tala, it is the name of the area. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second para is huge, can we split? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can better guide me in this. I feel it can't be split as the whole para describes the construction Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few times you use jargon for no descernable reason, see "piling work", "gusts", "potable water", etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced potable water with drinking water. Couldn't find any alternative to piling work. And shall I remove gusts? Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to say what the names of the places are now? See
WP:RECENTISM. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- I mentioned old names as per sources and official british era names. Like, Pulta was used by British, thus mentioned. Now, its Palta, but I mentioned both otherwise readers' might think its a spelling mistake. Wellington Square became Subodh Chandra Mallick Square, it is a complete name change, thus mentioned. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is JU a suitable acronym? Can't we just say University? Is it relevant which one it is? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- JU is like COMMONNAME here. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 18:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski:: I have tried to solve the issues you mentioned. Please check Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 21:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria

- spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

What makes timestravel a high-quality reliable source? IJRET?
- Timestravel is the travel related branch of Times of India. And IJRET is a peer reviewed journal. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 05:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you elaborate on the latter? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - As per their website their journal is peer reviewed and is approved by University Grants Commission (India) and other bodies. So, I think it should be high-quality reliable source. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given that the journal is listed here, we're going to need something more to support that the journal is not predatory. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I see... I dont think, we will get anything else to support that the journal is not predatory. But I will try to find. And Meghnad Saha Institute is a popular institute, also the journal is UGC approved, whick is the highest body of university regulatory body in India. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
- Sorry, this went above my head. Can you please elaborate? Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 05:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have references that are formatted using citation templates, such as {{cite web}}. You have other references that are handwritten - ie <ref>Citation details</ref>. Mixing these two things causes the formatting of the citations to be displayed in a way that is inconsistent. Either all of the references should use citation templates, or all of them should be consistently handwritten. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 19:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kolkata Municipal is a publisher, not a work. Ditto ICE, check for others
- I mentioned them under "Name of the website" Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 08:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggest switching to |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have modified till citation [16]. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - (pinging @Nikkimaria:) Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't seem that this is done? There are still a number of refs that use Kolkata Municipal in a work parameter. (By the way, it isn't generally necessary to have both parameters filled). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Done Nikkimaria Now its complete Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in when you include location
- I have tried to add location, if its mentioned in that Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 08:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nikkimaria Can you kindly check whether I am in the right track or not. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 19:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you're going to want to do is come up with a consistent rule for what information is included for what kind of source. So for example FN18 includes location, whereas FN32 does not - but these are the same type of source, so they should be doing the same thing. Location isn't mandatory for these type of references; you need to decide to either include it, or not, throughout. (This can differ between source types too - you could decide to include for newspaper and not for website. But again, need a consistent decision). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added location of all the news sources Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals
FN5: the publisher listed appears instead to be the affiliation of the authors
FN13: work title should use title case
FN16: NewspaperArchive should be credited using |via=; the work in this case is New Castle News
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 08:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN25 is missing language
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN34 is missing article title and the author name is formatted incorrectly. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Is this correct now? Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not quite: this isn't a book but a magazine article, so instead of {{cite book}} it should use {{cite magazine}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, there's another template for magazine. Thanks for the information. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Whats the next step? Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 16:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on IJRET? In what cases are you including location? In what cases are you including publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Authors are from a notable institute, the journal has sources and IRJET is UGC approved. That's what I found. I have added location for news sources and publisher for all sources. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 05:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't the case for all sources. For example, FN36 has no publisher. (It's not mandatory for newspapers to include publishers - I'd actually suggest simplifying the citations instead - but if you're going to do it it needs to be done consistently). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Publisher for all citations and Location for news related ones. I have wikilinked the names wherever used first, like first Kolkata, first KMC etc. @Nikkimaria: Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 05:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

What does the Titanic have to do with anything? That seems like an odd thing to mention, especially in the lead. Lots of objects were built with steel.
- Itss said that its the same steel as used in Titatic. And its mentioned by the sources since its The Titanic. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 21:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before pumped water supply to Kolkata began in 1820, [...] in the early eighteenth century Redundancy
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 21:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest putting footnote a in the body; the reader is likely to ask, as I did, "what's Lal Dighi?" ie is it a lake, a river, a man-made reservoir, or something else?
- I added a footnote after Lee Vilenski's comments Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 21:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph of the history section could do with being split for readability.
- Where should I split as im confused... Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 21:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Split Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 11:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Peirce, devised what became Tala tank in 1901. The Chief Engineer of KMC, W. B. MacCabe, designed the tank in 1902 I'm not sure I follow? Was it designed by Peirce or MacCabe? In 1901 or 1902?
- Peirce planned in 1901, MaCabe finalised it in 1902. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 11:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the likely notability of some of your red links. A major body of water and a city square are likely to be notable enough at least for a few paragraphs of history. Could the same be said for Babu Khelat Ghosh?
- Found some piece of history and wikilinked it Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 21:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tala tank also endured bomb scares during the India-Pakistan Wars of 1947–1948 and 1965 Is there anything more to say
- Nope. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 14:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
one of the strongest storms to impact the area ever? Recently? That year?
- "In the last 20 years". Added in the article Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 14:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Put refs in order, eg [22][23][9], [14][5] under "threats"
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 20:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Up to 2020, the reservoir developed only fourteen leaks. "only" is arguably editorialising—how many leaks would it be expected to develop? Also, when were the leaks and how serious were they? What repairs were carried out? What impact did the leaks have? Any flooding or loss of water supply?
- Done Removed "only". and they weren't serious to disrupt the city water supply. Renovations are carried out as a whole. Thats mentioned in the next para. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 15:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and steel of the same that was used in RMS Titanic As with the lead, I don't see the relevance of the Titanic.
No need to be so precise with measurements, eg (6.1–7.6 m) logs.[6] The 288–295 88.5 ft (27.0 m). You can use a parameter like |0 to round to significant figure.
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 14:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you can use |adj=on in the convert template where the measurement is an adjective (eg 20–25 ft (6.1–7.6 m) logs)
- Done Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 15:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tank is unique; it acts as a balancer,[6] having a single 60 in (150 cm) diameter mild steel water source and a supply pipe that fills the tank during off-peak hours and stores water in four equally sized, isolated chambers and supplies it to the city and other major underground reservoirs according to demand. This sentence seems unnecessarily long and complicated. I'm not sure what exactly is unique. Suggest breaking the sentence up for readability.
- The balancer nature, and the structure makes it unique. As per ICE, it was an innovative concept at that time. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 11:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Split Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 11:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the relevance of the first two links in the see also?
- tala tank is located in the Northern part of Kolkata. And removed Esplanade Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should give the names of publishers/publications, not just web addresses.
- Yes, I am doing that, as suggested by Nikimaria also Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Incredible India a high-quality reliable source?
- Its the official govt of India's tourism campaign. Incredible India Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that the article is sourced largely to various Indian news outlets (I don't know what the reliability is of these), local government, and a few foreign sources like the ICE blog. Two books are cited but neither appears to contain a detailed study of the Tala tank. In fact, one doesn't mention it at all and appears to be a business studies textbook. In the UK, I would normally expect to see such an impressive piece of engineering covered in more books and academic sources. I'm not used to writing about India, but I have reservations about the depth and breadth of research. For example, in about five minutes of Googling, I found that there had been several (unfounded) rumours that the tank had been poisoned during periods of religious/sectarian violence.
- Almost all the sources are from popular Indian news outlets. Indian topics lack sources, studies and data. Its very hard to find one. I couldnt even find a architectural plan of the tank. Regarding the poison thing, I didnt add it, since its a rumour and lack of highly reliable sources. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 21:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting and well-put-together article on an interesting feat of engineering. You've done a good job but I need convincing that it has the depth of a featured article. I have concerns over criterion 1a (well written) but those are relatively easy to address; I'm more concerned about 1b and 1c. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I have tried to address all of your points. Kindly check Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 15:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ Mitchell, how's this one going? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have concerns, I'm afraid. I'm not sure if I should outright oppose, but I can't support at the moment. I have a few fairly minor concerns, like formatting of references and the use of a government tourist website as a source, which I could overlook or fix myself. But the omission of the poisoning rumours and the context of ethno-religious conflict during the partition makes the article incomplete in my opinion, especially as I was able to find it with relative ease in multiple books on Google Books, and I don't think the depth and breadth of sourcing is up to FA standards. The article relies too much on news articles and websites in my opinion, and not enough on books and scholarly sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have already supported I tend to agree with HJ that there should be some mention of security. I don't know whether poisoning rumours should be mentioned but I think that publically available info on security should be included - http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/cisf-guards-at-tala-palta-tanks-soon/748759/ mentions security from 2 different organisations. Were the number of entry points reduced? @ArnabSaha: you mentioned there is some publically available info you can cite - I am guessing maybe nowadays the first line of security is provided by the operators of the tank? Also any info on how often the water flowing out of the tank is tested would be good - if available? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently working on this. Will try to complete in couple of hours Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 09:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1:, security was provided only for sometime, during the political tension between the 2 political parties. It wasnt permanent. neither any security is provided now nor water is tested from the tank, for poison. Normal water is tests are carried out in source (Palta) and other various parts of the network, which is irrelevant for the article. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 11:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Added poison to the tank Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 19:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Added poison rumors in the article Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 19:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make, which is the same concern that
  WP:FA?. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Drive by comment

MOS:CRORE do not seem to have been met. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- @Gog the Mild I have used INRConvert Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 10:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the requirements of
MOS:LAKH
.

Note "the South Asian numbering system is conventionally used for certain things (especially monetary amounts) in South Asian English. This is discouraged in Wikipedia articles"

And "When it is done anyway, for contextually important reasons, link the first spelled-out instance of each quantity (e.g. crore, which yields: crore). If no instances are spelled out, provide a note after the first instance, directing the reader to the article about the numbering system."

And "Provide a conversion to Western numbers for the first instance of each quantity (the templates {{lakh}}, {{crore}}, and {{lakh crore}} may be used for this purpose), and provide conversions for subsequent instance"

What are the "contextually important reasons" for the use of the South Asian numbering system in this article?
If it is to be used, have you "Provide[d] a conversion to Western numbers for the first instance of each quantity ... and provide[d] conversions for subsequent instance[s]" etc?

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, Done Changed to million/billion Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

₹ needs a translation at first mention in each of the lead, infobox and main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Oppose from Kavyansh.Singh, suggesting to withdraw

Great work has been done on this article, but I have to agree with HJ Mitchell. My most major concern with this article is its comprehensiveness. Following are few source which I found by a quick Google Scholar search. They are very informative, and seem to cover various other things which the article does not.
- Dey, Ayanangshu (April 8, 2021). "Challenges of retrofitting the world's biggest elevated water reservoir: Tala tank of Calcutta". Engineering History and Heritage.
  ISSN 1757-9430
  .
- Pal, Amitava; Bandyopadhyay, Aloke Kumar; Patra, Parthajit; Dey, Ayanangshu (October 1, 2019). "Refreshing Kolkata's 110-year-old, record-breaking elevated water reservoir". Civil Engineering. 172 (4).
  ISSN 0965-089X
  .

The above two source have various architectural plans of the tank, including "Details of a single bottom plate", "Details of column supporting the new ceiling with a strengthened base", "Diagram of the Palta–Tala water supply system showing numbers and diameters of pipes and how they connect the tank and reservoirs to the local distribution network", etc. Quoting a paragraph from the first source:

The tank was actually supported by a system of columns arranged in both longitudinal and transverse directions (Figure 6). Each system of column support was composed of four squarely placed columns, of equal sizes, to support any particular and corresponding portion of the tank above this frame. Initially, it was decided to strengthen the foundation by breaking and exposing the footings to its reinforcement. However, as footings were found to be more prone to cracks and not all were affected equally, the plan was later revised. Only the damaged ones were exposed and epoxy was used to bind old concrete with new. As the flooring was observed to be damaged and broken at several places (Figure 7), a 300 mm thick solid, reinforced concrete slab was also cast to raise the foundation and make it even and consistent.

Above quote in an example of an important detail which the "Structure" section of the article does not discuss. Aloke Kumar Bandyopadhyay, one of the author of second source has been mentioned as former Director General of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. I am not confident that the article is complete, and feel that it needs some more academic sources like books and journals. That being said, I am open for reconsideration if the issues are resolved. Feel free to ping me if you need any help. Thanks for your work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll further suggest to withdraw for now, access more academic sources through
  WP:TWL, expand the article, and then open a peer review page for a future FAC. Thanks for your work on this article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Coordinator note

It is clear that there is not a consensus to promote, so I am archiving this nomination. The usual two week pause will apply. I recommend that the nominator takes on board the helpful comments by all of the reviewers above with a view to resubmitting.

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2021 [19].

R-1 tank

Nominator(s): Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow editors! I have just published the R-1 tank article and I am attempting to promote it to the FA class. It's the first time I am doing this. I've read through the criteria and used multiple FAs as models, namely Panzer I and Verdeja (both of which are old nominations), as well as a more recent one—Union of Bulgaria and Romania. I hope my article is good enough to join the FA club. :)

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Flickr photos that have been nominated for deletion have had their license changed by the uploader since then, which has led to the nominator withdraw their request. All of the article's other photos have been reviewed as well, their license having been considered adequate. Lupishor (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—not passed

I see some serious issues with the image licensing in the article. A lot of the images are derived from photocopies with unknown authors. But reproduction of a two-dimensional work doesn't generate a new copyright, what we care about is the original photograph and whether it is in the public domain both in the source country and the United States, or the photographer / their heirs have agreed to release the photograph. (Some WWII photographs are public domain, but by no means all.) I can help with determining copyright status, but in general you have to know more information than you have provided, especially the author of the photograph and the first publication date. Also, for future reference, the WP:Volunteer Response Team should be contacted by third parties who own the copyright to media and want to release it under a free license.

On the other hand, the flickr photograph licensing looks acceptable since these are original works that have been released by the copyright holder.
Less important issue: what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Ideally it is stated in the image description for verifiability. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, @Buidhe:. I wasn't aware that the original image matters more than the photocopy. Considering that the three licenses that were used here can also be applied to the photos of the article in question, changing the license should solve the problem.

What exactly do you mean by what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Do you mean the program I used? If yes, I will just write it down in the image's description.

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by what it says in PD-RO-photo. It says "since issuance", is that since creation or since publication? If the latter you need a publication date that's sufficiently early. Also, several of the captions indicate that the photographs were taken in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovak requirements are different, to be in the public domain a photograph with no known author must have been published before 1946.

Ideally you would specify the source you consulted to determine the colors and other information in the image (such as the shape) but the means of creation is not necessary to specify. For example, this map cites a source. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: The photos used in the article are from Czechoslovakia and Romania, with one being from the Soviet Union. For the Czechoslovak ones, this license should do it, since they were all taken on territory of what is now Czechia. I see that the photos used on LT vz. 34, which is a Good Article, also use a similar license. The Romanian license I've linked above should also work—there are photos on Commons using it that have been uploaded 10 years ago, such as this one. From what I understand, what matters about that license is that "non-artistic photographs were not expressly protected by copyright", with the "issuance" part you referred to only counting for photos meant to be "artistic" (works of art?). For Soviet photos, the license used here should work.

Thanks for the explanation on the source thing. I will make the changes tomorrow. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PD-RO-photo explains what happened to the copyright where it expired, but I don't see where it says that non-artistic photographs remained in the public domain after the 1996 law. The Czech template cannot be used unless you find a publication at least 70 years ago as stated on the template. For it to be PD-US all the conditions listed on the template need to be satisfied, including previous publication (before March 1989). (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Hello. So I've read through the full Romanian license. "Since issuance" is given as de la apariție, meaning "since it appeared/since creation". It doesn't specify they are referring to publication, so I think the license is safe to use. As I said, there are many photos using it on Commons that have been around for 10 years. I don't think it would have been the case had the license not been adequate. This license can also be used.

For Czechoslovak photos, the EU license should also work. The photos were first published in the 1930s, since they had to be shown to the Romanian side who was interested in acquiring that vehicle. What confirms this is that I've found at least one of them in Romanian works, which are based on Romanian archive material, indicating they had been made public to the Romanians back then, despite having been taken in Czechoslovakia.

I am going to modify the licenses right now. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot assume that the photographs were published in the 1930s. Publication requires that these particular photographs have been distributed to the public, so anyone could obtain them, while military technology is often not fully disclosed to the public. There's a ton of copyvio on Commons and the deletion process is broken, so you cannot assume that if the photograph is not deleted it must be OK. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: All I can hope for then is that the Romanian photos are still ok, given what I said above about the license, so the image review can at least get an "only partially passed". About some of the photos taken in Czechoslovakia, it is possible they were taken by Romanian military commissions. However, I'm not sure if this makes the Romanian license applicable to them. Lupishor (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a Romanian person or entity was the original copyright holder, then I think the source country would be Romania. However, it's not sufficient to be public domain in the source country, it also has to be public domain in the US for use on Wikimedia. I think it may be more productive to revisit the licensing issue after you get some supports based on the content of the article. (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is regrettable that this has not attracted more attention, but I am afraid that it has timed out. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

As a general rule, I'd discard all Cold War-era technical sources as tainted by incomplete documentation and political agendas. So no Chamberlain & Ellis, Kliment and Doyle, etc.
Kliment & Francev needs its title translated and I'd be curious to know if it had any relationship with an apparent 1997 English translation. But that bit's not really a concern for this review.
Volonchuk needs an OCLC number.
What makes articles on warspot.ru reliable?
Be sure to tell the reader what each non-English language source is written in.
Zaloga, Kliment, Spielberger and Axworthy are known to me as highly reliable sources on Romanian/Czech armor. No way for me to evaluate the foreign-language sources.
No formatting issues for the citations.
No spot-checks made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 October 2021 [20].

Winchester Cathedral

Nominator(s): Bellminsterboy (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Winchester Cathedral. It is the longest medieval cathedral in the world, and the article has been substantially expanded and rewritten from the ground up by myself in the last month. It contains a wealth of information, all correctly sourced from reliable sources. Bellminsterboy (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bellminsterboy. I would suggest withdrawing and taking this particular article through

an independent source. The formatting of the citations is inconsistent and some are incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose and suggesting withdrawal (and peer review). Not quite ready - there's some uncited text that should be addressed, the lead isn't sufficient, and it relies too heavily on sources published by the church or related parties. Needs further work before being ready for FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 13:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Bellminsterboy, I'm going to archive this but don't be discouraged, pls take on board the comments of these experienced reviewers. As well as (or after) GAN and PR, you could consider the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 October 2021 [21].

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

Chidgk1: Chidgk1 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about climate changing gases from a mid-sized country. Thanks to an FA mentor it has been changed a lot since I last submitted it here. I understand that not everyone has time to read the whole article. But even if you just pick one section and make one comment that would be great. Although it may not get to FA before

COP26 starts in a couple of weeks anything we can improve may help. Even now some aide could be reading it as a starting point for writing a page of A4 to brief a minister. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Whoever is doing the source review should be especially careful as this article cited the garbage source EU Reporter until I removed it a few weeks ago. I also see excessive capitalization ("Just Transition", "International Politics", etc.) (t · c) buidhe 12:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe Fixed capitals (if anyone sees any more feel free to change yourself if easier than telling me) but could not find "etc." - if there is there some general rule of style I missed let me know. As I think you are familiar with the country would you have time to do a source review? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think the prose is FA standard yet. Can we get an independent copy-edit? The article suffers from

fused participle in the Lead. Have all the points raised in the previous FACs been addressed? And I see there is an abundance of helpful advice on the article's Talk Page. Has this advice been followed up? The nomination seems premature. Graham Beards (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Graham Beards Are you referring to "vehicles running on petrol" - perhaps I should explicitly say that the article is written in British English in which that grammar is fine. There may well be missing articles in the quotes if they have been poorly translated by a native speaker as Turkish lacks articles - I think adding "sic" is unnecessary but can do so if you wish. Yes it was copyedited twice and points raised in previous FACs and on talk page addressed. Which sections are suffering from proseline or stubby factoids please? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I don't think the copyedits have been 100% successful. Here's an edited version of the first two paragraphs of the Lead, which will illustrate the problems:

Current version: Greenhouse gas emissions in Turkey are dominated by a few sources: coal fired power plants, cars and cows produce about half of the country's five hundred million tonnes of CO2e per year.[a] Mostly carbon dioxide, along with some methane, these Turkish emissions contribute to the current climate change.[b]

The largest portion of carbon dioxide is from burning local and imported coal in the nation's coal-fired power stations. Exhaust from vehicles running on petrol or diesel is another significant source of GHG emissions, and also pollutes city air. The third most relevant fuel is fossil gas, which is burnt in Turkey's gas-fired power stations, homes and workplaces. As for methane emissions, most are from agriculture in the country, generally from livestock, with cows alone producing half of Turkey's agricultural greenhouse gas.

Edited version:

Greenhouse gas emissions in Turkey are dominated by coal-fired power plants, cars and cattle. These produce about half of the country's five hundred million tonnes of emissions—mainly carbon dioxide and methane—each year. These emissions contribute to climate change.

Most of the carbon dioxide comes from burning locally mined and imported coal in power stations. Another significant source is the exhaust from vehicles running on petrol or diesel. The third most relevant source of carbon dioxide is fossil gas, which is burnt in Turkey's gas-fired power stations, homes and workplaces. Most methane emissions come from agriculture particularly livestock; cows alone produce half of Turkey's agricultural greenhouse gas.

Proseline is a problem throughout the article. Graham Beards (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk:

talk) 16:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Graham Beards Yes you are right there were some problems with the lead - probably not from the copyeditor but more likely introduced by myself or other editors since the copyedit. I have redone it using some of your suggested text. Can you tell me which sections have the worst proseline? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have added an error here "another significant source is vehicles running on petrol or diesel". I don't think it will be helpful to say where the "worst" of the problems are. You need to find a competent copyeditior who has the time to spend on the article. I think you are bringing the article back to FAC too quickly, before it is ready. For now I suggest you remove all the references and footnotes from the Lead. If all the information is also covered in the Body, as it should be, they are not needed. It is traditional to define the subject of the article in the opening sentence, this has been lost in the latest edit. With regard to translations, you cannot argue that the definite and indefinite articles have been omitted because Turkish doesn't use them unless you are quoting someone else's translation, in which case quotation marks, a citation (and perhaps [sic] ) are needed. Graham Beards (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much work needed for this nomination to remain at FAC. I suggest the nomination is withdrawn and the article worked on away from the pressure and intense scrutiny. The nominator might wish to benefit from reviewing other candidates and gaining a deeper understanding of FA requirements. Graham Beards (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femke

I'm sad to see the phrase 'climate change in Turkey' reappear in the first sentence. It does not help define the scope of the article, it makes the sentence too long, and turkeys contribution to CC is too small to warrant mention.
talk) 21:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The structure requires attention. Why is mitigation a separate section to emission control plans?
talk) 21:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the notes are cited. One has the word 'presumably', which is a form of editorialising. One links to a Wikipedia MOS entry (that sentence can be removed). The first note comes close to OR / is OR, and needs copyediting.
talk) 21:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
may be rather than presumably is still OR, best to remove entire footnote.
talk) 13:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I think I mentioned misspelled CO₂ in a previous review. Fn106 lacks the subscript. Is there a consistent citation style? I'm seeing rp and sfn used both for page numbers.
talk) 21:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a third FAC attempt, I expect source formatting to be consistent and complete. Still seeing missing information, like a date for FN39.
talk) 11:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

FN5 does not seem to support the sentence. I can't find mention of coal subsidies in the source (phone may be to blame). Also, countries without coal subsidies and with carbon pricing still have greenhouse gas emissions, so I doubt the sentence is true.
talk) 11:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Not your phone - sorry to send you on a wild goose chase - I thought the coal subsidies was so much of a consensus among economists it did not need citing, but as I am about to add the new IMF report to cite gas subsidies I will add that here too. Added a quote re carbon pricing but as far as I know no economist would dispute this. Although non-economists might well dispute it - that is why Clayoquot asked me to add other mitigation options to the lead which I did. A far as I know the economists are not saying that carbon pricing will get rid of all emissions. That is why the sentence says "major reasons" not the only reasons.

The source says it's a reason emissions aren't going down. It does not support its the cause of the emissions.

talk) 12:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I agree the original economic causes back a few years were different - for example gas had not yet been discovered in the Black Sea and wind and solar was much more expensive when many of the coal plants were built and the subsidies started. I am trying to use the sentence to describe the present situation as the history may be a bit too detailed for the lead. Anyway Graham Beards is right I need to move the cites down into the body so when I do that I will duplicate the lead sentence and try and expand it as a body sentence a bit to clarify it. This is such a clear consensus among economists I won't have any problem finding plenty more cites for the body if needed perhaps with more explicit wording. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fossil fuel section starts with a quote. I don't think PR speech from the government is relevant. If included, it should not be in such a prominent location.
talk) 11:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Moved to less prominent place

Captions that are sentence fragments should not have a full stop, full sentences should (noticed two mistakes).

The last paragraph of the lede has a

WP:SEAOFBLUE

Make sure you use one spelling variant. I see European and American English (subsidised and subsidized). Choose one.
talk) 12:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I think this nomination came too soon after the previous. I suggest the article is withdrawn, and the nominator participate in reviewing other articles to learn more about what is expected in an FA. The FAC process is always a bit short on reviewers, so it's important articles come fully prepared.

talk) 11:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Pretty certain I won't be coming back to the FAC process after this attempt - neither as nominator nor reviewer. So tactically you might be better off stringing me along with a couple of comments each week in the hope I do some reviewing whilst I am here. If you still think I should withdraw the article I will likely instead take a look at bringing the closely related articles Coal power in Turkey and Electricity sector in Turkey up to good standard. Because spotting my own mistakes at FA level is just too difficult. Anyway thanks to both of you for your comments on the article so far and I welcome more, as even though I don't intend to submit it again it should be easy for me to fix the issues you point out. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame to hear, but there is no shame in it. Writing FAs is bloody difficult. I think the article has improved significantly over time. Tactically, I want more users writing and reviewing GAs, as I believe they form the backbone of Wikipedia. I hope that, like me, striving towards FA will have taught a few important things that help you with your opus of GAs. Forget about the perfect source formatting, and perfect adherence to MOS, but do remember

talk) 09:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree entirely with

Femke's wise words. Not achieving FA does not mean the article is fatally flawed, non-encyclopaedic or not worth reading. Quite the opposite is the case here. The article is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, and one of which you can rightly be proud. Graham Beards (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

OK I hereby withdraw it - hope to go through the remaining comments and if have further questions about them will ask on talk page of article Chidgk1 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 October 2021 [22].

Dexter's Laboratory

Nominator(s): — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Cartoon Network original animated television series that aired in the USA from April 27, 1996 (pilot shown in 1995), to November 20, 2003. This article has been previously nominated as a Good Article on August 20, 2008 (by yours truly, albeit a much younger and naive version), and January 16, 2013 (again, by me, but a more refined version of myself), for which the nomination was accepted. During the time between the first GA review and its initial promotion, a peer review was conducted on or around July 27, 2012, that found the article in 'reviewed' status. The article was officially promoted to GA status on or around January 16, 2013, which is shortly before the animated "banned episode" "Dexter's Rude Removal" aired for the first time on public broadcast. In the 8+ years since, I have worked tirelessly to maintain the article and include any reliable sources that verify the claims that were previously unattributed. It is in my sole discretion that the current Dexter's Laboratory article should meet the FA standards and would merit its own nomination into the FA category. In the event that one or more users should protest my nomination on the grounds that the article does not measure up to quality standards as set arbitrarily by the WP community, I will hereby offer my services as an editor to relinquish those claims and restore the article I am nominating to the status of a FA. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder for 100cellsman

I'll review this article soon. 웃O O 06:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that there are a number of scholarly works discussing this series that are not used in this article - for example Stockwell 2004 and Cornelio 2015. Could you speak to your approach to searching for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I did a lot of online research around early-mid 2011 by browsing The Free Library, the Google Newspaper Archive, Google Books, and reliable sources such as The New York Times to gather press releases, reviews, and interviews. About a year later, I began searching through LexisNexis and EBSCO, which were provided freely from my university, and added as many sources as I could find. The awards and DVD release sections are made up of mostly primary sources, Amazon, and TVShowsOnDVD.com links because that was the most concise and complete means of adding citations I could find. As mentioned in my (admittedly long-winded) nomination above, the series was in the public spotlight shortly after reaching GA in early 2013, and additional sources were added to the point that the banned episode was split into its own article. I continued to search for and include more sources to the page for another year or so until I became burned out on it and didn't think there was any work left to be done. The Scipedia link looks interesting and seems to have the series as a primary topic, but the other one is unfortunately behind a paywall and only mentions the series in passing in the abstract. Thank you for sharing. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

This has reached the three week mark and has attracted little attention and no support for promotion. Absent any indication that a consensus to promote may be forming I am afraid that this nomination is going to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 October 2021 [23].

Ceres (dwarf planet)

Nominator(s): Serendi ^podous 14:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest asteroid between Mars and Jupiter. Serendi ^podous 14:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- Hi Serendi, I see a Peer Review is open for this article and we don't allow FACs and PRs to run simultaneously; if you want this FAC to remain open pls close the PR now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens (support)

Great to see an astronomy article again, I was missing that. I try to throw some comments in soon. In the mean time, please make sure that everything is sourced (there should be inline citation behind every paragraph in the main text; this is not always the case). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we should cite the lead? The only other uncited paragraph is the single line introducing the three and two layer models; I tried to fix that by making the full stop into a colon, but that got marked in a PR. Serendi ^podous 21:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the lead, I am referring to the body. It looks like most of the sentences without citations are merely explanations/rewordings of stuff mentioned earlier (still, I think the respective citation should appear at the end of the paragraph to cover those sentences as well). And I think that, apart from the layer models, this one also needs a citation in any case: Bodies that met the first proposed definition but not the second, such as Ceres, were instead classified as dwarf planets. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first asteroid discovered – I think this needs to be better explained since you previously state it is a dwarf planet.
The old astronomical symbol of Ceres is a sickle, ⟨⚳⟩ – maybe make the connection to the goddess of agriculture?
The lead is a bit short and leaves many open questions. What does the name mean? And then: "It was originally considered a planet, but was reclassified as an asteroid in the 1850s after over 20 other objects in similar orbits were discovered. – so why it is a dwarf planet now? I think the lead needs to be improved to properly summarise the article.
less-dense – should it be "less dense"?

No. Attributive phrases are hyphenated. It's not a lesser amount of dense crust, but a crust that is less dense. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30 percent ice – be consistent, either use "percent" or % (I would opt for the latter). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved I think. Serendi ^podous 10:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to reply to each individual reviewer or coordinator queries (a brief "done" is sufficient). This way, one can easily see that points have been addressed, and this may give you more reviews more quickly.

Will do.

Theoretical astronomer Johannes Kepler had already noticed the gap between Mars and Jupiter in 1596 – This sentence doesn't make sense at this position in the text, because the reader can't know which gap it is talking about (there is obviously a gab between all planets). The principle should first be explained; maybe switch this sentence with the next?

Good pont.

Monatliche Correspondenz – Maybe explain what this is and why it is significant? (as you don't give the journals elsewhere).

Done.

pronunciation),[32] In keeping – either needs a dot or "In" needs to be lower case.

done

Ceres was once thought to be a member of an asteroid family. – Here I think we already want to know which asteroid family.

done

Ceres is in a near-1:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Pallas – I fear this is not accessible enough for the general public. Maybe an explanation could be added? Maybe start the paragraph with a sentence explaining what a resonance is.

done.

cold traps – I think you need to link to Cold trap (astronomy), not to the technical device. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done. Serendi ^podous 23:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been classified both as a C-type asteroid – I think you should state what C-type asteroids are. done
In July 2018, NASA released a comparison of physical features found on Ceres with similar ones present on Earth.[60] – Yeah, but what were the results? What are the implications? This sentence, as it currently is, is solely historical, in the section about geology.done
Ceres is the smallest object likely to be in hydrostatic equilibrium – is this consensus? There seem to be at least some researchers arguing that Enceladus is in hydrostatic equilibrium, which is much smaller?

Not according the the Enceladus article. This is a battle I don't intend to fight. If you want to go into the finer details, I am sure User:Kwamikagami can fill you in. This is his obsession. Serendi ^podous 23:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, Enceladus had an HE shape for a different rotational period, indicating that it's frozen out of HE. But there've been a lot of measurements of Enceladus since then, so that conclusion might be dated. A lot of refs use circular reasoning with these kinds of statements, though, so we need to be a bit careful. Better IMO to rely on sources dedicated to the question, rather than passing comments in articles reporting on something else. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that, if you are not sure that this is consensus (the Enceladus article seems to indicate that Porco et al. (2006) considered this possibility), than you need to formulate the sentence more carefully. Because at the moment, it implies that this is the consensus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should perhaps keep in mind that actual hydrostatic equilibrium is stricter than what the IAU planet and dwarf-planet definitions call hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e. "nearly round"). It has to be, because IAU says explicitly that Mercury is a planet, but it is not in HE. :) So one might want to check the context to see what researchers claiming HE for Enceladus mean. Double sharp (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The surface of Ceres is "remarkably" homogeneous on a global scale – why "remarkably" in quotation marks? done

I believe that was because the word "remarkably" was used by the source. Without the quotes, it might sound like we're making a POV judgement as to what is remarkable. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another large-scale variation is found in three large shallow basins (planitia) with degraded rims; these may be eroded craters, and two of the three have higher than average ammonium concentrations – I can't follow here, why is the anomaly restricted to three basins? done
The water ocean that is thought to have existed early in Ceres's history – This water ocean was not mentioned before, but "The" somehow indicates it was. Can it be properly introduced? done
Studies by the Hubble Space Telescope – it must be humans doing the study, not the telescope. Reword? done
a dark spot on its surface, which was nicknamed "Piazzi" – the spot seems to be white on the provided image; explain in the image caption why this is? done
and thus composed more of rock than ice – "comprised"?

Ugh. No. "Composed of" not "comprised of". Serendi ^podous 23:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't saw the "of". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A later computer simulation has suggested – later than what? done
Section "craters" has mainly history, but very little current knowledge. Maybe at least list the largest craters and interesting bits that might come with them? done
spots to the east - Vinalia Faculae. – can we make a proper sentence out of this, the dash seems to be misused? done
the secondary bright spot – what secondary bright spot, and what does that mean? Was not mentioned earlier, should be clearer. done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe include a "see also" or "main article" tag to the article Bright spots on Ceres in the section cyrovolcanism? Otherwise it is difficult to find this article. done
Link the different craters to their article. done (but they don't appear to have articles)

The article is Kerwan (crater). And I think there was another crater which was not linked, I don't remember where it was. You can see the existing crater articles in the expandable navigation template at the bottom of the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11 recognizable surface features, the natures of which were then undetermined.[11][69] One of these features corresponds to the "Piazzi" feature observed earlier. – I still don't understand what the Piazzi feature actually is. Dawn must have settled this dispute?

See comment below. Serendi ^podous 11:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

irradiation – should be linked or explained done
most of the planet's surface is extremely rich in carbon, with approximately 20% carbon by mass in its near surface – "Its" already refers to the surface, so this needs reformulation I think. Maybe combine both statements? done
Can anything be said about the origin of the boulders? How do they form? done
The active geology of Ceres is driven by ice and brines, with an overall salinity of around 5%. – The overal salinity of what? Of Ceres, the ice, or the brines? done
The fact that the surface has preserved craters smaller than 300 km (190 mi) in diameter indicate that the outermost layer of Ceres is on the order of 1000 times stronger than water ice. – Not sure if I understand correctly: The presence of small craters mean that the outermost layer was strong? And if there would be a larger crater it would indicate it was weak? This does not make immediate sense to me, maybe explain better.

The source doesn't specify. I would assume because smaller craters on a weaker crust would have relaxed, deformed, or eroded away. Serendi ^podous 13:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2021, two competing models for Ceres's interior, a 2-layer and a 3-layer model, not counting a possible small metallic core, are proposed. – Needs source (a general overview from 2021 would be best). If you can't source the 2021, I would remove that year, because the reader assumes that a source from that year was used. done
mantle – link at first mention, not in the middle of the article done
rock (mud) – but mud is not rock. That would be mudstone. done
kilometre – be consistent throughout the article with abbreviating units (usually you use km) and spelling (kilometre is British English, but elsewhere you tend to use American English). done
one of the Classical symbols of the goddess Ceres – why is "Classical" capitalised? done
It is unknown if it contains a rocky or metallic core, – recommend to replace "it" with Ceres for clarity, as "it" could also refer to the mantle. done
link porosity done
densities of the core and mantle/crust to be 2.46–2.90 and 1.68–1.95 g/cm3 – respectively? done
It is unknown if it contains a rocky or metallic core, – does it mean the mantle is the core, or is this about a fourth "layer" within the mantle? done
It is not possible to tell if Ceres' deep interior contains liquid or a core of dense material rich in metal – a very similar sentence about the core (metallic vs rock) was already given. Combine the two maybe? replaced --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serendipodous, have you addressed all of Jens' comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: I don't think I need to ping all of them...Serendi ^podous 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jens, du you have more to come on this? Or are you in a position to either support or oppose? Obviously it is not obligatory to do either. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild: I was very occupied in real life, but should have time now to finish it. At the moment, I cannot yet support as I still encounter too many issues. It might be close though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Jens. And don't feel unduly rushed. It had been a while since your last comment, so I thought I would just check up. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 2017, Dawn confirmed that Ceres has a transient atmosphere that appears to be linked to solar activity. Ice on Ceres can sublimate when energetic particles from the Sun hit exposed ice within craters.[105] – It is not obvious at first how these two sentences are linked to each other. Maybe make a single sentence out of it (I think it can be slightly shortened if needed)?done
In 2017, Dawn confirmed that Ceres has a transient atmosphere that appears to be linked to solar activity. Ice on Ceres can sublimate when energetic particles from the Sun hit exposed ice within craters.[105] – I think this belongs with the previous paragraph, I do not see why it has to be a paragraph on its own, and it's very short. done
Ceres is a surviving protoplanet that formed 4.56 billion years ago, the only one surviving in the inner Solar System – two times "surviving" is redundant.done
the only one surviving in the inner Solar System, with the rest either merging to form terrestrial planets or being ejected from the Solar System by Jupiter – so ejection from the inner Solar System to the outer Solar System is not a possibility?

The source uses "ejected from the system", presumably the Solar System. Serendi ^podous 21:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

with a formation in the asteroid belt – better "within"?done
The discovery of ammonia salts in Occator crater supports an origin in the outer Solar System. – Could do with a brief explanation. Why do support such an origin?done
and ammonia salts are more likely to be native to the surface – again, without explanation difficult to follow and comprehend. How can we tell they are possibly native to the surface? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)done[reply]
The geological evolution of Ceres was dependent on – does that mean that the geological evolution is not an ongoing process anymore? Or should it be "early geological evolution"?done
Ceres's relatively warm surface temperature implies that any of the resulting ice on its surface would have gradually sublimated – earlier it was stated that the sublimation was likely due to solar radiation? done
water volcanism – what is the difference to "cryovolcanism", the term that was used earlier?done
suggesting that viscous relaxation, water volcanism and tectonics may have erased older geological features – already mentioned in the section "craters", although there only the viscuous relaxation was presented as the most likely explanation.

It is still relevant to that section. Serendi ^podous 02:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant amounts of water ice in its crust.[64] – Seems to be misplaced, was already mentioned several times before, and is too unspecific (how much is "significant"?). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)done[reply]
Hi Jens Lallensack, are you in a position yet to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither are obligatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay again, my last comments below. Looking ok now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 November, 1984, an occultation of a star by Ceres observed in Mexico, Florida and across the Caribbean. – verb missing? And I feel it might be good to add which star it was. At least you give this information for the 22 December, 2012 event. For the latter, you also provide magnitude; it would be consistent to provide this for both (or none).done
Keck telescope should be liked at first mention (currently linked at second mention). Also, the linked article states that The W. M. Keck Observatory is a two-telescope astronomical observatory, so if you are referring to the Keck telescope, which do you mean? If you mean both, than better go with "Keck observatory"?done
Later near-infrared images – I think you introduced this before. If so, it should refer to that: "The 2012 near-infrared images …"done
Visible-light Hubble Space Telescope – Same goes here. done.k
adaptive optics – only link at first mention.done
Link Dantu to Dantu (crater)done
Section "Dawn mission" – include a "main article" tag?done
"Dawn" should be linked the first time it appears in the main text.done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is On 22 December, 2012, Ceres occulted the star TYC 1865-00446-1 over parts of Japan, Russia, and China.[117] a separate one-sentence paragraph, when the mention of the earlier occultation is not? done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – all quibbles addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text done.
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periodsdone.
File:Ceres_-_RC3_-_Haulani_Crater_(22381131691)_(cropped).jpg: what aspect of this image is CC-licensed? all of them.

Then what is PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment at the bottom. Serendi ^podous 20:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What we need to clarify is what aspect of the work is PD versus what is CC. For example, did the uploader edit the originally PD source? What was changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All he did was trim the black from the edges. And what does it matter? PD or CC it still qualifies. Serendi ^podous 01:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either would qualify; if we're using both, we need to be clear on how they interact. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giuseppe_Piazzi.jpg: when and where was this first published? 1808, in Italy presumably.

In what form was it published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean published? It's a painting. If you are referring to the uploader, then see here Serendi ^podous 20:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm referring to the painting - simply being painted doesn't make the work published. See definition here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the link I provided? The image was taken from that site. Serendi ^podous 01:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It does not answer my question about whether the image is correctly tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is now. Serendi ^podous 16:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. The work may be hosted on the SI website, but it's not originally an SI work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The work is from 1808! It's public domain! Serendi ^podous 01:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should be able to find an appropriate tag for it. What is the earliest publication of the image that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would that solve anything? Finding the oldest date for online publication won't determine whether it predates 1923. Serendi ^podous 01:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the portrait's entry in the Smithsonian Library. It clearly says the portrait is out of copyright. Now can we please put this insanity to rest? Serendi ^podous 01:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria and Serendipodous: Did a quick bit of Googling, and it was published in Monatliche Correspondenz in 1810. Hopefully this link works. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very much appreciated. I don't know what tag will be required to link the page to the image, but perhaps Nikkimaria does. Serendi ^podous 16:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias! That's perfect. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceres_Orbit_c.svg: there are two shades of blue here - which is being referred to as "blue" in the caption? Also (and for File:Animation_of_Dawn_trajectory_around_Ceres.gif as well), see
MOS:COLOUR
done.

What has been done? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the meaning of the lighter colors in the descriptions. As for the Dawn trajectory, I have no idea what you want. Serendi ^podous 20:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using only colour to convey meaning presents an accessibility issue - can the accessibility of these images be improved? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, and it doesn't matter. There are only two things in the animation, ergo the image would work just as well in black and white. Serendi ^podous 01:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The former includes more than two colours. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The orbits are marked, so the colours aren't necessary. Serendi ^podous 16:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the images with a tag based on being "solely created by NASA" credit other entities in addition to NASA. Are they the intellectual property of NASA, or of other entities? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NASA material is not protected by copyright. The whole "for all mankind" thing.

To clarify: as per JPL: "Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below."

The Dawn mission, from which every single close up image of Ceres has been taken, was a JPL mission, ergo every image taken by Dawn falls under that proviso.

Serendi ^podous 16:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giuseppe_Piazzi.jpg remains incorrectly tagged; accessibility concerns persist for File:Ceres_Orbit_c.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I haven't the faintest idea what you want me to do with the first one; it is directly linked to a page that clearly states it is in the public domain. What else could you possibly want? As to the latter, like I said, the image would still be discernable in black and white, and even so, it doesn't really matter since the only thing of import in the image is Dawn's trajectory, not that it is around Ceres, which is specified everywhere else. Serendi ^podous 21:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceres_Orbit_c.svg does not mention Dawn; are you thinking of the other COLOUR issue mentioned above? As to the first image, as noted, it is not a Smithsonian product and should not be tagged as such. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said re: File:Ceres_Orbit_c.svg, every orbit is clearly labelled, so the colours aren't necessary. It would work just as well in black and white. Serendi ^podous 21:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:: As for the Piazzi image, is is this what you want? Serendi ^podous 21:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous:, you may wish to consider rephrasing the query to a volunteer editor giving up their time to help you get this nomination to FA a little more positively if you are hoping for a response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:: It's a bit late for that, no? I'll rephrase it but unless we ping another image expert I don't think anything will come of it.Serendi ^podous 15:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any image experts willing to answer the questions raised in this review? Becuase I have answered them to the best of my understanding, and still, apparently not to the standards of User:Nikkimaria. I do not know what she wants from me. I would appreciate a second opionion. Thank you. Serendi ^podous 15:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have spent the last four months trying to improve this article. That is all I am trying to do. I have answered your issues to the best of my ability, but I cannot operate in the dark. Your continued refusal to respond to my comments is completely incomprehensible to me. Please respond with what is left for me to do? Serendi ^podous 22:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated, I continue to have concerns about the accessibility issues resulting from conveying information through colour alone; I don't agree that information would be adequately conveyed without being able to see the colours. To be absolutely clear, I am not opposing over this issue, so if you choose to ignore it that's up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to be able to fix your problem, but I don't know what you want me to do. The only reason the colours exist in the diagram is to distinguish Ceres's orbit. But Ceres's orbit is already marked "Ceres". Other than titling the orbits of the other planets, what else can I do? Serendi ^podous 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to say, I don't understand the accessibility issue. I added "inclined" to "blue", but you would need to be completely color blind to not be able to distinguish blue from grey, and even then you'd be able to tell which orbit was Ceres'. The blue is merely highlighting. Many more people are blind, which is a much greater accessibility issue. But the blind understand that, and since the information is provided verbally as well as graphically, I would think this img would be more accessible than the maps, which we cannot adequately convey in words.

Serendipodous, I know it's bizarre that a painting uncovered in Pompeii wouldn't be PD for being published before 1923, but that's the wording of the law, at least in the US. But also "unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus 70 years" (subject to extension). It would appear that visual arts are covered by that. — kwami (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tagging issue on the painting was resolved above per Harrias' find of an early publication. So no remaining issues there.

WRT accessibility: perhaps it would be helpful to make use of a sim to understand how this is perceived by different users? There are two blue shades in the image, one of which will appear as grey for some types of colour blindness and the other of which basically disappears into the black background for some other types. I appreciate that there are labels, but their size and positioning makes them difficult to read and to interpret. Labelling that was larger and not overlapped with the orbits would be helpful; ditto simplifying the colouring to use only one shade (one which remains visible). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Toptal, and the orbit is clearly visible for all 4 types of color blindness. The only problem is with achromatopsia, where the two shades of blue look the same, so you can't distinguish which parts of the Cererian orbit are above and below the ecliptic.

Nikkimaria, what if the lithograph had been first published in 2007? Wouldn't it still be PD because the artist had been dead for more than 70 yrs? — kwami (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped out the image with one that fits your requirements. Serendi ^podous 09:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bit of lorem ipsum near the crossbar. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped out. Serendi ^podous 15:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for increasing the label size; that definitely helps. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami

Good to see this article finally brought back up to snuff. It is so much better now! A few minor issues, though.

The last para in the name section is composed of three unrelated topics (the adjective, the symbol, and the element Cerium). They do not belong in the same paragraph. The FA criteria do not forbid single-sentence paragraphs; they say the number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text. Like avoiding passives, that's a general rule of thumb, and shouldn't be adhered to too strictly: Cobbling unrelated topics together also inhibits the flow of the text. Better several concise paragraphs that read well than a long meandering one that doesn't. In this case, there's not a lot to say on these topics.

Kwami you are either an editor or a reviewer. You can't be both. One-sentence paragraphs are not allowed as per FA rules. I already went through this. You can complain but if you do you're an editor, not a reviewer. Serendi ^podous 09:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting that an article is badly written is part of any FA review, because FA's are supposed to be well-written. Please show where in the FA rules short paras are not allowed. I just showed you where they are. 17:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I had to combine short paragraphs to pass GAN. Serendi ^podous 17:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter. An article needs to be well-written to pass FAR. And no-one at GAN told you you had to merge unrelated topics into a single paragraph. The GA criteria don't require it either: they just say follow the MOS, which is what I paraphrased above. — kwami (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They told me to when they passed the article for GAN. If that was an issue, it would not have passed. Serendi ^podous 19:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs whenever possible; and

MOS:LINEBREAKS states that "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. WP:PARAGRAPH says, One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly, and MOS:PARA says, Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. This is standard practice for writing, not just a WP thing. But "sparingly" doesn't mean zero. When the topics are unrelated, the alternative is to expand on them. One of the topics (adjectival forms) was reduced to a single sentence under GAR; the other, on the element, could easily be expanded, but would be off-topic in this article. I suppose we could move trivia from the footnotes into the main text, but really, trivia doesn't belong in an FA except possibly in a footnote. (The trivia here being that the discoverer of Palladium recalled that he once thought to name it after Ceres, but didn't.) When you have to bend over backwards to accommodate a general guideline, damaging the article in the process, it's better to make an exception. — kwami (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, I would go for one paragraph only (as it is in the article right now). It is my feeling that most editors here at FAC would do the same, and featured articles with single-sentence paragraphs are hard to find. I don't think the reader will be confused that these things are discussed within the same paragraph, at least I was not; it read quite fluently and naturally. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reader can follow it. But that's not what a paragraph is for. A paragraph is supposed to contain a coherent topic. We don't just put in a paragraph break after every ten sentences regardless of topic. The MOS doesn't address this; I think they expect us all to have learned how to write a paragraph in highschool.

At paragraph, we say, A paragraph ... is a self-contained unit of discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea. According to that definition, what we have here is not a paragraph. It's just a random blob of text. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way. To me, the content seems related enough to be discussed in a single paragraph (talking about the second paragraph in the "Name and symbol" section). But lets see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a well-crafted paragraph, the first line introduces the topic of that paragraph. Here the first line has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph. Yes, all three topics relate to the name, and thus are all belong in the 'name' section. But they don't form a coherent sub-topic within that section. If we're going to merge them together, it would make just as much sense to merge them all into the preceding paragraph, which is also about the name. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'discovery', in the midst of Kepler's, Titius' and Bode's ideas about a missing planet between Mars and Jupiter, there's a comment by Kant about how there shouldn't be a planet there. It's a bit confusing to switch from one POV to the other, and then back again, without any transition. Kant's ideas should probably be at
Titius-Bode Law
, since in this article we don't go on to detail other people who may have argued that a planet shouldn't be there (that is, the comment on Kant doesn't have an apparent purpose), whereas we do detail how expectations from the Titius-Bode law lead to the discovery of several large asteroids.

I don't know where you're getting that from. Kant says a planet should be there, but isn't. Serendi ^podous 09:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the quote you provided he says, The width between the orbit of Jupiter and Mars is so great that the space enclosed there exceeds the regions of all lower planetary orbits taken together ... that space is worthy of the greatest among all planets, namely, of that which has more mass than all the others together.

In other words, the great gap without planets is due to Jupiter being the greatest of the planets, which is pretty close to modern understanding. If he says somewhere else that there should be a planet there, you should include that in the quotation. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a leap. Or he's simply saying that the great empty space is worthy of a Jupiter-sized planet. Serendi ^podous 17:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But you claim that he says there should be a planet there. He doesn't. If he doesn't say there should be a planet, then the quote doesn't belong here. Not unless you wish to develop the idea into something coherent, in contrast to the Titius-Bode Law. — kwami (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong? I know that might be difficult for you to accept, but it is nonetheless a possibility. Serendi ^podous 18:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I may be wrong, which is why I asked you to include the statement in the quote if Kant did indeed make it.

Unless you mean that I can't parse the quote. That's also a possibility. But if the quote is so obscurely worded that I can't follow it, it's likely that other readers won't be able to follow it either, and so should be removed or replaced for that reason. One of the FA criteria is that an article be clearly written, and if Kant is saying what you interpret him to be saying, this section is not clearly written. — kwami (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I admit. I was wrong there. Bad eyesight. Serendi ^podous 19:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hoskin agrees with Kwami's interpretation, saying "In the middle of the eighteenth century Immanuel Kant also sees a dynamical justification for the gap in the great mass of Jupiter".

Incidentally, Johann Heinrich Lambert is even more quotable here (and Hoskin quotes him). "And who knows whether already planets are missing which have departed from the vast space between Mars and Jupiter? Does it then hold of celestial bodies as well as of the Earth, that the stronger chafe the weaker, and are Jupiter and Saturn destined to plunder forever?" Which, in its inclusion of Saturn, sounds even more prescient. Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Three large shallow basins ... form much of Ceres's lowlands" -- Ceres' lowlands are not defined or described, as they are for the Moon, Mars or Venus, so the reader won't know what this means. How much of Ceres do the lowlands cover? The ref never uses the term; for all I can tell, the planitia are the lowlands. Maybe reword to 'low-lying basins' or something else closer to the ref? (Also, if the planitia have been named since 2018, it might be worth naming them here. One of them is presumably Vendimia)

Rephrased. According to [this map], a low region in the southeast is not a planitia. Also it seems to date Vendimia is the only named one. Serendi ^podous 13:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give the size of Vendimia? We give the size of Kerwan and note the paucity of large craters; I at least would want to know how much larger than the others Vendimia is, and how large it is compared to Ceres. — kwami (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Size added. Serendi ^podous 17:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Still OR. You're interpreting the map yourself, rather than reporting RS's. Indeed, on that page they say, the concentration of domes in Ceres's topographically low regions may provide a clue to their origin. These low regions may be of impact origin. If the low regions are impact features, then it's confusing to say that "much" of the lowest-lying terrain comprises the basins. Better to be agnostic and simply speak of low-lying basins. — kwami (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The largest crater on Ceres, Kerwan Basin" -- this contradicts the idea in the next para that Planitia A, B and C are degraded craters, but the discrepancy is ignored. Note that the article on the "missing large craters" of Ceres is a couple years older than the article on the planitia potentially being large craters, giving the authors only a fraction of the time to have evaluated the Dawn data, something the casual reader won't notice.

changed to "largest confirmed crater." Serendi ^podous 12:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One of these features corresponds to the "Piazzi" feature observed earlier." By now we presumably know what Piazzi was, so it would be satisfying to have the resolution explained here. It would also be nice to identify the two dark Keck features and at least a short comment on whether the 11 Hubble features have been identified with features imaged by Dawn.

See comment below. Serendi ^podous 11:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A 2017 computer simulation suggested that there were originally as many as 22 cryovolcanoes on Ceres that are now unrecognisable due to viscous relaxation" -- I can't find that number in the source. From the wording, it sounds like Ceres started off with 22 cryovolcanoes and only one of them remains (that is, that if Dawn had visited back then, it would've imaged approx. 22 cryovolcanos on the surface), when what I suspect they meant is that there could have been a series of as many as 22 over the course of Ceres' history, like the sinking seamounts of the Hawaiian island chain. If I've misread and our refs do say that there could've been larger numbers of cryovolcanoes at any one time in Ceres' past, it would be good to make that explicit.

Fixed. Serendi ^podous 11:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still OR. They say there may be as many as 32 today, but excluded 10 because they were too degraded to be useful. Also, they don't give an estimate of how many there may have been originally, but imply many more, so the number 22 is doubly wrong. And the wording still says that Ceres started off with <= 22 cryovolcanoes, and that those same 22 have risen and fallen repeatedly over history -- I'm not seeing anything in the ref about cryovolcanoes being resurrected. Also, the oldest estimate is 500Ma, and they're estimating for the last Gy. There is no mention at all that I can see as to what was "originally" on Ceres.

Changed "repeatedly" to "sequentially". Serendi ^podous 18:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the models don't suggest that one cryovolcano necessarily forms every 50My, but that that would be the average over the past Gy. They weren't able to determine if the rate has changed over time. The way we word it, we imply that the rate has remained constant.

Fixed. Serendi ^podous 19:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed it (trying to juggle multiple points), but do we say that the ice was partially rather than fully melted, and give an estimate of the %age of ice in the cryovolcanoes relative to the crust?

Given that it used to be thought that Ahuna was the only remaining cryovolcano, we might want to mention Yamor as another, that Ahuna is prominent because it's young, while Yamor has been preserved because it's near the pole and cold, and that a couple dozen suspected others are degraded. — kwami (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

added. Serendi ^podous 19:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The old astronomical symbol of Ceres ..." -- perhaps a comment that the symbol is still occasionally seen, though usually decorative? E.g. this NASA/JPL poster uses it. (Though they also use symbols for Eris, Haumea and Makemake, as public-outreach rather than a reflection of astronomical use.)

You seem to have refuted yourself there. Serendi ^podous 09:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay. — kwami (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Its relatively high gravitational field suggests it is dense, and thus composed more of rock than ice" -- this suggests that it is dense relative to the crust, but the ref in the next para concludes that cryovolcanoes have less rock than the crust. It also concludes that diapirs are unlikely to be sufficient to explain Ahura, contradicting this paragraph.

Quoting the source:

The emplacement of the large Ahuna Mons also seems to be best explained by the diapirism of a slurry of brine and silicate particles that Ruesch et al. (2019a) connect to the top of the mantle. ... Ahuna Mons' unique large gravity anomaly suggests a low ice content (Ruesch et al., 2019a). Based on gravity data analysis, Ruesch et al. (2019a) connect the formation of Ahuna Mons to upwelling of a dense slurry from the mantle.

I don't know what source you're quoting. Serendi ^podous 12:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Low ice is the same as high rock. The source in that para says the mtns have low ice / high rock content. The scr for the following para says they have high ice / low rock content (which is why they slump on the order of 100My ~ 1Gy). The discrepancy should at least be noted. — kwami (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what scr means, Kwami. Can you please just tell me what source you're quoting? Serendi ^podous 10:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A 2018 computer simulation suggested that as many as 22 cryovolcanoes on Ceres, now unrecognisable due to viscous relaxation, have risen and fallen back sequentially over the course of the last 1.5 billion years." -- I don't see how this is a computer simulation, and the ref doesn't say that any simulation came up with the number 22. It's also not correct to say they're unrecognizable: the ref states that they are potentially recognizable as domes, which are assumed to be degraded cryovolcanoes. It's only older domes (> several 100Ma) that are unrecognizable, with the exception of Yamor. The word "sequentially" is misleading here: there is nothing that is sequential. Also, the 1/50My rate is for the past ~Gy, not the much more precise figure of 1.5Gy, and we should note something about not knowing whether the rate has remained constant. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fixed.

I still have probs w the cryovolcanism section. ("Scr" above was a typo for src/source. Sorry.)

"A 2018 computer simulation suggested that cryovolcanoes on Ceres have risen and fallen back ..."

No, they only predict that once formed, they will slump back over periods of several 100My. They don't predict that more will keep rising.

"...over the course of the last 1.5 billion years."

I'm only seeing over ~1Gy. From Sori et al.,

Fig 2 in Sori et al goes back to 1.5-2.5 gyr. Serendi ^podous 06:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They also said the can only estimate to an order of magnitude. For us to use the figure 1.5Gy is spuriously precise. It makes it sound like more than 1.4Gy and less than 1.6Gy, or at least more than 1Gy and less than 2Gy. — kwami (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our results are consistent with a cryovolcanic construct forming, on average, every ~50 Myr over the past ~1 Gyr with an effusion rate of order 104 m3 yr−1. ... Over the past 1 Gyr, the distribution of cryovolcanism as a function of time is not statistically distinguishable from a constant distribution in which a cryovolcano forms every 50 Myr

Where you discuss the planitiae, you might want to summarize from that same para in Sori:

our tests reveal that eruptions are not uniformly distributed over Ceres ... Some domes may be clustered in the site of an ancient impact basin, possibly suggesting a genetic link.

Doesn't specificy which basin. Serendi ^podous 07:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Yamor Mons ... resembles Ahuna Mons despite showing no signs of activity"

That suggests that Ahuna does show signs of activity, but AFAICT it doesn't.

Lack of craters. Serendi ^podous 06:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Lack of craters only means its young. Does not mean it's active. — kwami (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Models suggest that one cryovolcano should form on Ceres on average every 50 million years."

If I've got this right, the number of relaxed cryovolcanoes they've identified correspond to 1 every 50My. The models don't predict the quantity that should form.

"Its relatively high gravitational field suggests it is dense, and thus composed more of rock than ice, and that its placement is likely due to diapirism of a slurry of brine and silicate particles from the top of the mantle."

Contradicted in Sori et al. p.947, sourced in the next para:

For the domes to viscously relax at all, they must have average ice content greater than typical Cerean crust, which is relatively immobile at these spatial scales. Such an ice enhancement may be expected if Cerean cryomagma is formed by partial melting, rather than complete melting, of portions of the interior. A maximum ice content of the shallow subsurface of Ceres is 30–40%, implying that the domes are 30–70% ice by volume.

[in the previous sentence: Our FEM flow models imply that the domes thus have a maximum volumetric ice content of 70%] — kwami (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— kwami (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved. I hope. Serendi ^podous 07:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, new section, per some comments below:

Due to their small masses and large separations, smaller objects within the asteroid belt rarely fall into gravitatonal resonances with other, larger objects.

It sounds like the smaller bodies have small masses, when they mean both the smaller and the larger bodies have small masses. And anyway, the larger objects fall into resonance with the smaller as well -- the dynamics are mutual. So I'd word it s.t. like,

Due to their small masses and large separations, objects within the asteroid belt rarely fall into gravitatonal resonances with each other.

Then it would make sense that Ceres does, since it's the most massive by far, rather than implying that small bodies don't fall into resonance with Ceres because they're small.

fixed. Serendi ^podous 10:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres is in a near-1:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Pallas (their proper orbital periods differ by 0.2%).

What are the implications? The resonance article gives their mismatch at 0.7°/cycle, for a randomization time of a millennium, so I would think there could be no long-term consequence to this. Is it just coincidence? Evidence of something that happened recently? It would be worth explaining what this means if we know, and admitting ignorance if we don't.

The only evidence I can find for near resonances is Wikipedia pages, none of which adequately cite their claims, but they all say they are coincidental. Serendi ^podous 10:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two potential source regions, designated Piazzi (123°E, 21°N) and Region A (231°E, 23°N), have been visualized in the near infrared as dark areas (Region A also has a bright center)

Should mention that the bright center is the Occator faculae. That ties in with,

A haze periodically appears above Cerealia, supporting the hypothesis that some sort of outgassing or sublimating ice formed the bright spots.

No source I can find makes a direct connection between "region A" and either Occator crater or cerealia facula. Not even the one Wikipedia's article on Occator uses to cite it. Serendi ^podous 10:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— kwami (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kwamikagami, are you in a position yet to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither are obligatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kwami ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to review the article again, though it seems that my concerns have been addressed. I'll try to get to it today. — kwami (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up

Okay, overall review. I edited trivial things such as choice of preposition and sigfigs in conversions in a few places, rather than bringing them up here; hope you don't mind.

Lead

stronger crust that is at most 30% ice.

30% by volume or by mass?

This makes Ceres the closest cryovolcanic body to the Sun known to date.

Awkward. > closest known or, maybe better, innermost known cryovolcanic body in the Solar system done

History: For many years after the acceptance of heliocentrism, several astronomers

Awkward. 'many years' clashes with 'several astrononmers'. Drop 'for many years', since you detail the timing? done

orbits only conformed to

> 'orbits would only conform to' done

each planet was twice as far from the Sun as the preceding

That's an inaccurate simplification for the inner planets. Each planet is at 4+x, which each value of x is twice the preceding. The actual series is 4, 7, 10 [Earth], 16, 28, 52 .... That is, Bode did not predict that Ceres would be 2x the distance of Mars, but at 7/4 the distance. done

there ought to be another planet with an orbital radius near 2.8 astronomical units

We sould note that the prediction was spot-on, rather than making the reader look it up. (I can see why Bode thought he was vindicated!) done

Many theoreticians, such as Immanuel Kant, pondered whether the gap had been

> 'Other theoreticians, such as Immanuel Kant, pondered whether the gap between Mars and Jupiter had been' done

It has a variant [reversed]⟨⚳⟩, reversed to resemble to ... These symbols were later replaced ...

We should have a reference to the original proposal for the symbol, and an early attestation of any variants. According to Cunningham (2015: 69, 206), Zach (who first recovered Ceres after Piazzi's announcement) came up with the sickle as a symbol for Ceres, and it was apparently independently suggested by Bode in 1802 (Cunningham p.164). But I only see the modern orientation, not the reversed form. Could the reversed form be a modern astrological variant, the way Vesta's symbol is? (I'm not finding anything.) Anyway, we can't say "these symbols" if we can only attest to one of them before the ① convention.

There were several other proposed symbols, e.g. an ear of wheat, detailed in Cunningham, but AFAICT they weren't picked up by anyone and so IMO aren't worth bothering about. Though they would be equivalent in importance to the fn on Palladium being transcribed 'C' for Ceres in a notebook.

I think it would be simpler if you added that. Serendi ^podous 12:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done — kwami (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit: Ceres is in a near-1:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Pallas

Incorrect. The source says "A resonance requires ... This is not the case with Ceres and Pallas".

We still don't say what the significance is of it being almost correct. One I can think of is that it probably gives us a good way to calculate the mass of Pallas. done

Rotation

We should give the accurate info (Dawn results) before the inaccurate info (older Hubble results), assuming we give the inaccurate info at all. I don't see why we would want to, so unless there's some reason to keep, would recommend deleting the Hubble info. done

Geology

Ceres comprises approximately a quarter of the estimated

> 'nearly a third' (31% is much closer to a third than a quarter) done

Ceres is the smallest known dwarf planet, and the only dwarf planet inside

> 'Ceres is the only dwarf planet inside'

According to Alan Stern and colleagues, there are many known DPs that are smaller than Ceres. (If we accept that Ceres "is" a DP, despite it not being clear if it fits the IAU definition, then we can't exclude other purported DPs.) And we go on to note that it's about the size of the dwarf planet Orcus. (It's larger than the nominal value for Orcus.)

Alan Stern is a proven liar so I don't care what he thinks. If we have actually imaged Orcus's disc, that's news to me. Serendi ^podous 12:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Grundy et al. also call Orcus a DP. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ceres" repeated way too much in this para.

Its surface area is approximately the same as the land area of India or Argentina.

>Its surface area is the size of Argentina, and 85% the size of India.

Since we now know the area with considerable precision, we can be more precise. (It's the size of Argentina to within half a percent, so I think we're safe to say it "is" the size of Argentina.) done

Ceres is the smallest object likely to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, being 600 km (370 mi) smaller and less than half the mass of Saturn's moon Rhea, the next-smallest likely object.

Dated, and should be deleted, now that we're no longer adhering to a strict HE-definition of DPs. Besides, Ceres is quite likely larger than Orcus, and we can't judge Orcus' likelihood of being in HE. done

Composition: Studies using the Hubble Space Telescope reveal that graphite, sulfur, and sulfur dioxide are present on Ceres's surface.

This contradicts another claim in the article,

the two other crucial biogenic elements, sulfur and phosphorus, have proven elusive

The claim that there isn't sulfur is more recent. Did they debunk the Hubble results?

The source is infuriatingly vague, but appears to suggest that Dawn found no sulfur. Serendi ^podous 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craters: slowly flattening out earlier impacts.

> larger impacts done

with the eastern hemisphere in particular comparatively lightly cratered

You mean the in the equatorial regions? done

The size frequency of craters of between 20 and 100 km

You mean the size frequency in the polar regions? This is a bit hard to follow. done

Cryovolcanism: It is roughly antipodal to Kerwan

Do we have an age estimate for Kerwan? That article states "The crater is likely to be old relative to the rest of Ceres's surface, as it is overlapped by nearly every other feature in the area," contradicting the claim that it might have triggered Ahuna Mons.

That article is uncited. And this citation says that Kerwan is supoerposed over older craters. Serendi ^podous 17:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed the Kerwan article. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cryovolcanoes on Ceres have fallen back

"Fallen back" is odd here. Not sure of an appropriate wording: 'slumped'? 'receded'? Maybe someone else here has a better idea. done

BTW, I created a stub article for Oxo crater so we don't have a red link.

Internal structure

The fact that the surface has preserved craters smaller than 300 km (190 mi) in diameter indicates that the outermost layer of Ceres is on the order of 1000 times stronger than water ice.

This makes no sense. You need strength to maintain large structures, not small ones. Pure water ice can maintain craters up to a size smaller than 300 km. Are you sure it isn't craters as large as 300 km?

No. Larger craters take more time to relax into the surface than smaller ones; ergo the fact that smaller craters are still present means that the surface is still hard enough to preserve them. Serendi ^podous 17:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done Because you sounded like you knew what you were talking about, I thought you probably had reason to think that (e.g. the source said as much) and that I was wrong, but I forgot that you actually have very little understanding of the subject. "Preservation of craters <300 km in diameter" is clearly shorthand for the the largest craters being under 300km, so I corrected "craters smaller than 300 km" to "craters almost 300 km". If you insist that small craters degrade faster than large ones, please provide a ref. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

with the mantle and crust being 70–90 km

Does this mean 'each being' or 'together being'? done

That is, the core, mantle and crust

> 'That is, the core (if it exists), mantle and crust' done

Atmosphere: accelerating electrons from the solar wind regularly

I don't follow what "regularly" means here. done

Origin: with the rest either merging to form terrestrial planets or being ejected from the Solar System by Jupiter.

> Other protoplanets in the inner Solar system either merged to form the terrestrial planets, were broken up, or were ejected by Jupiter

Psyche, for example, is the core of a protoplanet. Do we know all the ones Jupiter ejected escaped from the Solar system, or could some have ended up in the scattered disk?

I'm going by the source. What exactly do you want me to do? Find a source that agrees with you? Serendi ^podous 18:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want the article to be accurate. Psyche and Hygiea show that those are not the only two options. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres formed as a centaur

Does the ref use the word 'centaur'? I understand that to mean a transient body that migrated in from the TNO region. Rather, Ceres is supposed to have formed among the giant planets and been knocked inward. I wouldn't call that a 'centaur' unless we have RS to back that up, and then I'd edit the centaur article to reflect this. done

friction from planetesimal accretion,

> impact energy, not friction; drop the comma

Not a fan of Oxford, hm? Done anyway. Serendi ^podous 18:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are thought to have been sufficient to allow Ceres to differentiate into a rocky core and icy mantle soon after its formation

But Ceres is not differentiated into a rocky core and an icy mantle, at least not according to some models. So at best we can say "may have been sufficient".

possibly even a liquid water ocean done

But we don't talk about this as a 'possibly': from the fact we don't find such an ocean we conclude that it was obliterated by impacts, not that it didn't exist. So > 'with a likely liquid-water ocean' done

cryovolcanism may have erased

> 'cryovolcanism erased' (it's already presented as a suggestion, and it's a pretty sure one) done

Habitibility

water with 20% carbon by mass

This is a confusing statement. Water is 0% carbon by mass. done

The likely brine pockets under its surface could provide habitats for life.

IMO this would be better placed near the beginning of the paragraph. Maybe something like:

Although Ceres is not as actively discussed as a potential home for microbial extraterrestrial life as Mars, Europa, Enceladus, or Titan, it is the most water-rich body in the inner Solar System, and the likely brine pockets under its surface could provide habitats for life. There is evidence that its icy mantle was once a subterranean ocean. done

I would delete 'watery' and 'after Earth': we give figures elsewhere that Ceres is substantially more water-rich than Earth. Also, do we have evidence that the mantle was once an ocean? I thought people concluded that any frozen ocean was obliterated by impacts, which is why we don't find it.

I find that difficult to believe. Perhaps as a percentage, but the richness is in absolute terms. Serendi ^podous 19:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, richness is in relative terms. We're talking about the chance of life. A huge dry world may have more kg water than a small, wet world, but the wet world would still be considered more likely to be habitable. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Earth a huge dry world if you consider the whole thing (not just the surface)? Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a huge amt of water in Earth's mantle, various estimates but many times the amt in the oceans. But as a %age, yes, not nearly as much as Ceres. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maps: allowing for its entire surface to be mapped.

We should explain then why the south-polar region is missing from the maps. Are more recent maps more complete?

None in true colour, that I know of. Serendi ^podous 19:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be in true color. The B&W maps are also incomplete. — kwami (talk)

Which is why I included the polar maps. Serendi ^podous 20:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which are incomplete. The large black area at the south pole is not an albedo feature, it's shadow. If you took a photo of the quarter moon, so that half the surface was in shadow and thus not visible in the photograph, it would be misleading to claim that you'd photographed the entire surface of the moon. — kwami (talk)

— kwami (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final evaluation

Thanks. It looks good overall.

I still have a few objections, a new one in a fix, the others from above:

Neptune, once discovered, was 8 AU closer than the law predicted, leading it to be considered a coincidence.

Not clear if "it" is Neptune or the law. Also, a date for Neptune's discovery would help the reader follow the timeline. done

Still stronger crust that is at most 30% ice (by volume or by mass?) in the lead. done

Still say it is the most water-rich body in the inner Solar System after Earth while also saying that it has 500 times the %age of water that Earth has. done

Still there is evidence that its icy mantle was once a watery subterranean ocean. But this contradicts statements like "the data are consistent with a mantle of hydrated silicates": if it had ever been liquid, all rock would've fallen out. And impacts churning up rock would only go so deep. So at minimum this would suggest that the meaning of "mantle" here is different from "mantle" in the cut-away illustration of the interior. Could we maybe drop the word 'mantle' as ambiguous? done

I object to saying Ceres is the smallest DP when Orcus is likely smaller by volume, and certainly smaller by mass. ~~Also to denying that Psyche and Hygiea exist.~~ — kwami (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC) done[reply]

All such additions would be OR. At the very least

WP:SYNTH. Serendi ^podous 20:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Then subtract. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There are 5 dwarf planets, Ceres is the smallest. Also, you call Psyche the core of a protoplanet, which means, by definition, it isn't a protoplanet.Serendi ^podous 20:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Psyche is just the core of a protoplanet. That's the point! Psyche was neither absorbed by the terrestrial planets nor ejected by Jupiter. — kwami (talk)

But as I said, it is not a protoplanet if it is the core of a protoplanet, anymore than Earth's core is Earth. Serendi ^podous 21:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're making my argument for me. The ones that merged to form terrestrial planets aren't protoplanets anymore either. We're talking about what happened to the inner protoplanets, not whether they still are protoplanets. Some merged to form the terrestrial planets. Some were ejected. A couple remain as recognizable protoplanets. Others remain as something else, disrupted to varying degrees. Psyche retains its core. Other don't even have that. You're effectively claiming that the asteroid belt does not exist. — kwami (talk)

quote: "Other protoplanets in the inner Solar system either merged to form the terrestrial planets, were broken up, or were ejected by Jupiter".

So where's the problem? Psyche was a protoplanet that broke up. Serendi ^podous 23:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Serendipodous!! I thought you had removed that wording. I must've failed to refresh the page. — kwami (talk)

[ah, you had rejected it. Thanks for the additional ref. — kwami (talk)] done

Well yeah. You were asking me to add uncited information. That was the point. Serendi ^podous 14:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point is that when you write something that is wrong, and need additional refs to fix it, you find those additional refs. You don't fight to keep it wrong. You are trying for an FA here, remember? — kwami (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted to count Ceres as a DP, despite RS's casting doubt on that claim, and I conceded on the condition that we follow RS's as to whether a body is a DP. You raised no objections. We have RS's that Orcus is a DP. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that Ceres is the smallest DP.

The IAU is not a reliable source? Serendi ^podous 21:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quit playing stupid. It's childish. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing stupid Kwami; I've never accepted your position. Just because we've been at odds for 10 years doesn't mean I've changed my mind. Serendi ^podous 22:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your dedication to authority is inappropriate for someone editing scientific articles. We follow RS's. That's in the plural. We have RS's that Orcus is a DP. We have RS's that Orcus is smaller than Ceres. Therefore we contradict RS's if we claim that Ceres is the smallest DP. At best we could say that "some sources claim that Ceres is the smallest DP." But why? It's trivia of no real importance. — kwami (talk)

But you don't have all the reliable sources. Unless you can gather together every reliable source ever published about Orcus and show that every single one of them claims that Orcus is a dwarf planet, you cannot argue that any one source tops the designated authority intended to rule on issues of classification. Serendi ^podous 22:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The designated authority intended to rule on issues of classification" -- once again you demonstrate your fundamental failure to understand how science works.

The IAU is the authority for definitions, names, and assigning credit for discoveries. It rejects any role in determining whether an object is a DP, just as it refuses to rule on whether a feature is a crater or a volcano. That would be unscientific, and the IAU is a scientific body.

If we had to demonstrate everything in this article was consistent with "every single RS", we wouldn't have an article. You make an absolute claim when it contradicts RS's. That is inappropriate not only for a FA, but for any article on WP. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if we found a reliable source that made a credible argument that the Sun was not a star, does that mean we should rewrite the entire article to reflect it? Or would we side with the overwhelming balance of opinion? Serendi ^podous 23:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we had RS's that the Sun did not fit the IAU definition of a star, then yes, that is exactly what we would do. Or we would ignore the IAU definition of a star, which would be analogous to what we decided to do in this article.

Here are some reputable astronomers, some notable enough to have their own WP article, who've published in peer-reviewed journals such as Icarus, Science and the letters of the Royal Astronomical Society, and who accept Orcus as a DP:

Gonzalo Tancredi, University of Uruguay
Sofia Favre, Los Molinos Observatory
Simon Porter, Southwest Research Institute
Mike Brown, CalTech
Amy Barr, Planetary Science Institute
Will Grundy, Lowell Observatory
Keith Noll,
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Marc Buie, Southwest Research Institute
Megan Schwamb, National Taiwan University
Henry Roe, Gemini Observatory
Alex Parker, Southwest Research Institute
Chad Trujillo, Northern Arizona U
Denise Stephens, Brigham Young U

Another,

David Nesvorný

, has had an asteroid named in his honor for his contributions to astronomy.

What is your source? An amateur astronomer who is a contributing online writer for Space.com. So, indeed, I challenge your claim that bureaucratic authority trumps science, especially when the bureaucrats deny they have that authority. — kwami (talk)

I don't have something more formal from the IAU, but in their public-facing material, they note that just because they have recognised five DPs does not mean that there are not more: Q: How many more new dwarf planets are there likely to be? A: There may be dozens or perhaps even more than a hundred waiting to be discovered. Okay, this predates Grundy et al., but there's no way you get that many without at least Orcus. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find.

In case someone here wants to argue that statements by an anonymous IAU staff writer are authoritative and should be taken literally, note that they appear to contradict each other. E.g., there are 5 "accepted" DPs, but 2 "known" plutoids. It also says that "Charon may receive consideration," which at best would seem to be idle speculation since the IAU specifically rejected Charon as a DP. But it does show that the IAU is not maintaining a list of DPs the way it maintains lists of satellites, minor planets and named surface features. — kwami (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still allowing for its entire surface to be mapped.

You say "there is a complete map of Ceres below the first one!" But all the maps are missing the south-polar region, which is in shadow. I think my addition "apart from some shadowed areas at the poles" is accurate. It's misleading to say that a map is complete when you can't see anything on part of it. The south-polar region, AFAICT, has not been mapped.

Fine. Done. Serendi ^podous 22:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I skipped the exploration section yesterday. This is the only remaining section, so I shouldn't be adding any more criticisms.

Observation: ~~keen eyes with 20/20 vision may be able to see it~~

Is "20/20 vision" sourced? "Keen eyes" implies significantly better than 20/20 vision, which is merely average. (Or maybe not even that? According to visual acuity, "normal" vision is 6/4 (better than 20/15), which is better than 20/20.) But keen vision is not just acuity, which can be fixed with glasses; more important is good night vision. [fixed myself]

~~showed a spot on its surface, which was nicknamed "Piazzi"~~

We should clarify that it's a dark spot, which we confirm twice later for both visible and infra-red. [fixed myself]

The caption of File:Ceres Rotation.jpg, which shows a dramatic bright spot, appears to be wrong. It seems to identify it as Piazzi:

Hubble images taken over a span of 2 hours and 20 minutes in 2004, showing the "Piazzi" feature

I changed that to "unidentified". Can we determine what it is?

Since the point of that img was apparently to show Piazzi, an ID that was not supported by the published description of the img, I replaced it with File:Ceres optimized.jpg, which is the best img obtained from Earth. The contrast is still enhanced, but less grossly than in the rotation img, so there are several subtle features (as we describe in the text) rather than a single dramatic feature that cries out for identification. I'll count this as done if there are no objections. — kwami (talk)

Dawn mission: and then down to its final orbit ... for at least three months.

We should update this para now that the mission has been accomplished. We hardly need every date, because those are in the dedicated article, but we should change scheduled to the actual durations, add the unscheduled extended mission (XMO), and note when observations ceased. We hopefully have all the data and sources we need in the Dawn article.

Since everything else has been done, I support FA as soon as the Dawn schedule is updated. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kwami, "A few minor issues"! I genuinely LOLed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piazzi

I have been looking for the final identity of the Piazzi feature for months. Besides being impossible to Google (every article on Ceres is going to mention the word "Piazzi", since he discovered the damn thing), there seems to have been a concerted effort on the part of the Dawn mission team not to mention it. I've assumed the most likely answer, which is that Piazzi is Occator crater, but I haven't been able to confirm it. At this point, I may have to start emailing people. Of course, that wouldn't help if they can't point me to a source. Serendi ^podous 09:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schäfer et al. ([24]) have this: "Recent observations with the Herschel Space Observatory by Küppers et al. (2014) detected H2O in the proximity of Ceres and attributed it to the Piazzi feature and one additional surface feature at 20°N by applying a gas kinetic model." Does that help? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I suppose I could look at a map of Ceres at 20 N and see what features correspond to Piazzi, but that would be OR. Serendi ^podous 12:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the statement is ambiguous as to whether both features are at 20 degrees or just the latter. I've written someone, asking for a ref for this and the Keck & Hubble features, can write to others if they don't respond. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piazzi is in the middle of Vendimia Planitia, close to Dantu crater. The coordinates agree nicely with the map provided and this pre-Dawn figure. Looks like the region with Occator was previously just called "Region A". Double sharp (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Still not perfect; doesn't explain what Piazzi is, but at least it closes the wound. Serendi ^podous 15:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for large features in low-res images to disappear in high-res. Looks like Piazzi isn't a geological feature, but a local deviation in albedo. Same with Region A -- the bright spot may be the faculae, but it doesn't appear as though the surrounding dark area corresponds to anything that's visible close-up. — kwami (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Olbers Regio comes to mind. Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the dark ring of Region A might be some sort of compensation for the bright spot in the imaging or processing. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Double sharp

If I may point out just a small thing: the map of Ceres' polar regions at the end of the article (File:PIA20126-Ceres-PolarRegions-Dawn-20151023.jpg) has "Ysolo Mons" near the north pole. But this name has since been officially changed to "Yamor Mons" (the other map has it right). (The original name, hilariously, originated from a bit of Wikipedia vandalism.) Double sharp (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, far be it from us to shirk responsibility for the chaos we cause. Serendi ^podous 15:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The caption solves it, thanks. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: In the "Origin and evolution" section Ceres is called the only surviving protoplanet in the inner Solar System; but aren't Pallas and Vesta also, according to protoplanet?

I read through the whole article and everything else read well and looked fine, so happy to support once this last thing is explained. Double sharp (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Last issue resolved. Serendi ^podous 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support then. You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

'~~Ferdinandea' was not acceptable to other nations and was dropped.~~ ~~- suggest changing to "The latter (term/name/epitet) was not acceptable to other nations and was dropped. " as you've used the word three times in successive sentences.~~

~~Dawn revealed that Ceres has a heavily cratered surface; nevertheless, Ceres possesses fewer large craters than expected~~ ~~--> "Dawn revealed that Ceres has a heavily cratered surface, although there are fewer than expected large craters" - to avoid mentioning "Ceres" in 3 successive sentences~~

~~Statistics had suggested Ceres should possess 10 to 15 craters larger than 400 km in diameter; however, to date no craters on Ceres with a diameter larger than 280 km have been detected~~ --> try "Statistics had predicted 10 to 15 craters larger than 400 km in diameter, however none with a diameter larger than 280 km have been detected to date" (trim redundant) - also, anything about how this number was predicted?

~~link infrared or near infrared~~

NB:
Mining of Ceres
is just a redirect after an AfD

~~Other than that~~, reads well and on track for FA-hood Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done Serendi ^podous 18:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

The opening sentence links to
main belt, which redirects to Asteroid belt
. I suggest piping it.
- So you're OK with "largest asteroid in the asteroid belt"?
  - Perhaps "largest astronomical object in the asteroid belt?" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it was reclassified as an asteroid in the 1850s after the discovery of over 20 other objects in similar orbits" - why not give the actual year? 1851?
- There doesn't seem to have been a precise time. It just happened organically. About the closest I could give you is, sometime between 1853 and 1858.
  - But the article says " As the first such body to be discovered, in 1851 Ceres was given the designation 1 Ceres under the modern system of minor-planet designations." Am I misreading? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good catch. Revised.
"Despite being closer to Earth than Jupiter, which has been known since antiquity, Ceres's small size means that its apparent magnitude ranges from 6.7 to 9.3, peaking at opposition once during its 15- to 16-month synodic period. Thus even at its brightest, it is too dim to be seen by the naked eye, except under extremely dark skies." - I feel like this could be written in three or four sentences. Otherwise, the "Despite" construct isn't paid off until the second sentence, which could be too complicated for some readers. Maybe just switch the order around? For example - "Even when at its brightest, Ceres is usually too dim to be seen from Earth by the naked eye, except under extremely dark skies. Despite being closer to Earth than Jupiter, which has been known since antiquity, Ceres's small size means that its apparent magnitude ranges from 6.7 to 9.3, peaking at opposition once during its 15- to 16-month synodic period." Even then, I'm not sure that you need to add that Jupiter has been known since antiquity, since the focus is on Ceres.

revised.

"Its surface features are barely visible even with the most powerful telescopes, and little was known of them until the robotic NASA spacecraft Dawn entered orbit around Ceres on 6 March 2015." - since the lead is fairly short, maybe add some of the information learned from the Dawn mission, considering how important that mission was for the understanding of Ceres.
"Ceres appears to be partially differentiated into a muddy (ice-rock) mantle/core and a less-dense but stronger crust that is at most 30% ice. " - the word "appears" sticks out to me and reads of some uncertainty. Maybe something like - "Based on observations, scientists believe that Ceres is partially differentiated..." or something.
- Since that info was found by Dawn, makes sense to credit Dawn there.
" It probably no longer has an internal ocean of liquid water, but there is brine that can flow through the outer mantle and reach the surface." - similar as the above, the "probably" doesn't sit right with me. Could you explain why the "probably"? Also, this would be a good place to add a bit about possible (however unlikely) habitability, since the lead is on the short side.
- revised.
Make sure you round "kilometres" after its first usage.
- round in what sense?
  - Err, sorry, I meant make sure you abbreviate! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is "km-scale" rather than "kilometre-scale" OK then?
      - That's probably one that can be kept fully spelled out, but the rest of the "kilometres" should be abbreviated, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement- In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly after spelling out the first use. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"As the first such body to be discovered, in 1851 Ceres was given the designation 1 Ceres under the modern system of minor-planet designations." - who decided this? This is a pretty big moment, considering that it's the first, so a bit of history would be good.
- Again, there was no precise moment when it happened. The first to do so was Benjamin Valtz in 1852, but he didn't use it for Ceres.
"By the 1860s, the existence of a fundamental difference between asteroids such as Ceres and the major planets was widely accepted, though a precise definition of "planet" was not formulated until 2006,[35] when the debate surrounding Pluto and what constitutes a planet led to Ceres being considered for reclassification as a planet." - can you find a way to re-word so you don't say the word "planet" four times in a sentence?
- revised.
"But on 24 August 2006 the assembly adopted the additional requirement that a planet must have "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit". " - poor grammar, starting a sentence with "But"
- I seem to have revised that without meaning to.
"Ceres follows an orbit between Mars and Jupiter, within the asteroid belt and closer to the orbit of Mars, with a period of 4.6 Earth years" - what is the "period" mentioned here?
- revised.
"Compared to other planets and dwarf planets, Ceres's orbit is moderately though not drastically inclined (i = 10.6° compared to 7° for Mercury and 17° for Pluto) and eccentric (e = 0.08 compared to 0.09 for Mars)." - could you explain this in laymen terms?
- revised.
"Orbital resonances, instances in which celestial objects fall into gravitational step with the orbits of other, larger objects, are rare in the asteroid belt, due to the asteroids' small masses and large separations." - this sentence is a bit complicated. I suggest something like "Due to their small masses and large separations, it is rare for asteroids to have orbital resonances, in which celestial objects fall into gravitational step with the orbits of other, larger objects." Not sure if that wording is accurate, but something along those lines is clearer.
- revised.
"Ceres is in a near-1:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Pallas (their proper orbital periods differ by 0.2%)." - any reason for this second linking of orbital resonance?
- revised.
"About 0.14% of water molecules released from the surface are expected to end up in the traps, hopping an average of 3 times before escaping or being trapped" - is "hopping" a technical term here?
- The term used in the article is "a model of ballistic hops".
"Hubble Space Telescope observations" - maybe specify the year, that it was taken before the Dawn mission?
- revised. Serendi ^podous 20:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"however, none with a diameter larger than 280 km have been detected to date... the largest confirmed crater on Ceres, Kerwan Basin, is 284 km across..." - uhh, contradiction much?
- revised
  - But a reader still might be confused by the 284 one being larger than 280 km. Maybe just say "only one with a diamater larger than 280 km?" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A 2018 computer simulation suggested that cryovolcanoes on Ceres have fallen back due to viscous relaxation over the course of the last ~billion years. " - can you write out something rather than the informal "~billion"

revised.

"Vast regions of the surface of Ceres lack any large (>100 m (330 ft)) boulders. " - yikes can you avoid the double parenthesis?
- revised.
"In early 2014, the Herschel Space Observatory detected localized (not more than 60 km (37 mi) in diameter) mid-latitude sources of water vapor on Ceres" - again, can you avoid the parenthesis within parenthesis?
- revised
"Today, Ceres has become considerably less geologically active" - the "Today" isn't needed
- revised.
"In 2014, the Herschel Space Observatory found Ceres to possess a tenuous atmosphere of water vapor." - you mention this under "Observation" and "Atmosphere"
- removed.

The article isn't in bad shape by any means, but compared to other articles about solar system objects, I feel like it's lacking. I fixed a typo during my review, which suggests that there hasn't been enough eyes. Still, I don't believe my comments will be too difficult to address, so I'll be happy to revisit my review when you address my concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed. Serendi ^podous 20:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm switching to a conditional support. Thanks for addressing my concerns so quickly! I just have two outstanding issues - the km being rounded, and the bit about no craters being larger than 280 km. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed. Thanks! :) Serendi ^podous 15:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed quite a few km that don't have imperial units, so be sure to convert them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

added. Apropos of nothing, when did this mandatory imperial conversion become standard? It's been 10 years since I did an FAC so I admit there's a bit of a "these kids today", but to me it just feels like a concession to Conservapedia. Serendi ^podous 16:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but thanks for adding it! I've been writing featured articles for 15 years now, and as an American, I've always used both metric and imperial units in articles, and it's been part of the Manual of Style for as long as I've been editing. Rather than being a concession, adding the units helps make the article accessible to all readers. Thanks for your work in this important article, and I look forward to its return being part of a featured topic :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I'm a Yank too, but I don't bother with imperial. For an international encyclopedia, IMO we should use international standards. For all those ppl who don't use imperial and find all the parentheticals distracting, wouldn't it be better to use a hover-over conversion? Place your cursor over the metric units, and get a little pop-up with the imperial equivalent? We have a similar problem with pronunciations, where we only make an exception to IPA for Usonians, with an awkward respelling system that doesn't really work very well. Most articles only use IPA. — kwami (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Do you support this nomination, or not? Serendi ^podous 12:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I keep meaning to go over it again for a final evaluation, but I haven't been able to get to it. That's not going to hold up approval. — kwami (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley (support)

"Despite being closer to Earth than Jupiter, which has been known since antiquity," I doubt you need to say this. Few if any readers interested in the article will not already know these points.
You say in the lead that Ceres is a dwarf planet, in the infobox likely dwarf planet. This is inconsistent.
"theoretical astronomer and mystic Johannes Kepler" Your source says that Kepler wrote the Mysterium cosmographicum (Cosmographic Mystery), but does not describe him as a mystic.

OK, what word should I use to describe why he wanted the Solar System to follow a preconceived set of ratios he made up? Serendi ^podous 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to express personal opinions on how Kepler should be described. We should follow reliable sources and your source does not say he was a mystic. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. Serendi ^podous 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"an i = 10.6°". I suggest "an orbital inclination (i) of 10.6°" would be clearer.
"stretched". I would prefer eccentricity.

Another reviewer wanted a word more accessible to the layman. EDIT: subbed with "elongated". Serendi ^podous 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"suggesting up to a quarter of its mass is composed of water". Is there a minimum estimate for water composition?
"Ceres is close to being in hydrostatic equilibrium, and thus to being a dwarf planet". This implies that it is not a dwarf planet, but you say it is.

I say it's a dwarf planet, because it is, officially, by definition. The rest is just Kwamikagami being lawyery. Serendi ^podous 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)→[reply]

There is nothing official here apart from the IAU definition. A body cannot be "officially" a DP, any more than a stallar object can be "officially" a brown dwarf, because the IAU definition is not "whatever we decide is a DP", but the physical criteria that define the category of DP -- and the IAU has no control of the physical properties of an object. All we can do is follow RS's as to whether it fits the definition. There have been some RS doubts as to whether Ceres fits the definition. I have no idea whether those doubts will stand up to scrutiny. If we find RS's that say those doubts are either spurious or have been addressed, then I'll be fine with saying that Ceres is a DP.

Or, if we find a RS that astronomers have come to ignore the IAU definition and instead follow Stern's rule of thumb, "if it looks like a world, then it's a (dwarf) planet", then after modifying the DP article accordingly I'd be happy with saying Ceres is a DP. It's certainly a "world" in Sterns' sense. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, Wikipedia is not helping anyone by saying that Ceres isn't a dwarf planet. Everyone who is remotely qualified in the required fields says Ceres is dwarf planet. You can disagree, but ultimately you're just crying No true dwarf planet. So work this issue out of your system or stop editing Wikipedia. Serendi ^podous 20:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. We follow RS's on WP. We don't dumb things down because we don't think the reader can handle it. "Everyone who is remotely qualified ... says Ceres is dwarf planet" -- except for those who don't. It would be easier for all of us if Ceres were a DP. But we have a RS saying that's not clear. Until you address the RS issue, you cannot cherry-pick the sources you like and ignore those you don't.

Again, if you can provide a consensus from "everyone who is remotely qualified" that those RS concerns are not relevant / have been resolved, then I'm happy to accept Ceres as a DP. But it's up to you to provide the RS's for your claims. And I'm not going to stop editing because you find the RS requirement onerous. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"graphite, sulfur, and sulfur dioxide are present on Ceres's surface. The former is evidently the result". I think "former" can only be used in selecting from two - with three it is ambiguous. (The reference to "latter two" clarifies, but I think it is still better avoided.)
"Their maximum age is of 150 million years". Why "of"?
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues resolved. Serendi ^podous 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The leaching of water from rock is estimated to yield a salinity of around 5%.". It may just be my ignorance, but I do not understand this. fixed
"The fact that the surface has preserved craters smaller than 300 km (190 mi) in diameter indicate that the outermost layer" The fact...indicates, not indicate. fixed
"Gravity measurements from Dawn have generated two competing models for Ceres's interior." This is effectively a sentence which is a heading to the subsections below, which looks odd. I suggest numbering the models 1 and 2 instead of making them subsections. Also, as there are two different two layer models, is that not three models in total? fixed
What is "admittance modeling"? Could it be linked to Admittance?

No. It is a technique for determining interior structure from gravity and topography. Serendi ^podous 12:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article it could be linked to explaining? Otherwise I think it needs a note. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that link above IS to an article explaining it. Just not in a way that I can express. Serendi ^podous 12:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made clear that I meant a wikilink - or a note in the notes section of the article. I think one or the other is needed as many readers will not understand the term. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's completely irrelevant, it might as well not be there. Serendi ^podous 13:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hints of an atmosphere had appeared in early 2014, the Herschel Space Observatory detected localized mid-latitude sources of water vapor on Ceres" This is ungrammatical. Maybe "in early 2014 when the Herschel" fixed.
"The limited data available was more consistent with cometary-style sublimation". "previously available" would be clearer. fixed.
"On 13 November 1984, an occultation of the star BD+8°471 by Ceres was observed in Mexico, Florida and across the Caribbean." I do not see how occultations are relevant unless they tell us something about Ceres. fixed.
"that a massive cryovolcano called Ahuna Mons is the strongest evidence yet for the existence of these mysterious formations". There are two issues with this. 1. You have already referred to Ahuna Mons several times, but you refer to it here as if it has not been previously mentioned. 2. What is meant by "evidence yet for the existence of these mysterious formations"? You seem to be referring to the bright spots, but there is no mystery whether they exist. fixed.Dudley Miles (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. My only other point is that you should explain why the 22 December 2012 occultation is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf planet?

Serendipodous has gotten really PO'd over my stance on this issue, fearing it puts FA status in jeopardy, so perhaps this deserves its own section where others can comment.

I don't know whether Ceres is a DP or not. It's certainly referred to as one often enough, including by the IAU (and this years before anyone could actually know). But Serendipodous believes that an object is a DP or not based on whether the IAU announces it to be, not based on whether it actually fits the IAU definition of a DP. That's not how any science works -- defining a category so we have an agreed set of terms does not determine the physical characteristics of any particular body. That's up researchers to determine.

I'm aware of only one RS that addresses the issue of whether Ceres fits the IAU definition of DP. It concludes that there are anomalies that have not been explained. Those issues may now be resolved. There are presumably many other sources that I've never heard of. It may be that other astronomers have rejected those doubts, and that the consensus is that Ceres is a DP. I don't know, and I hardly care, except as a bit of trivia. But I do care that we follow RS's in a FA. — kwami (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The views I express below grew out of the discusion at Talk:List of possible dwarf planets#Mercury.

The most interesting point is that it has been known since 1984 that Mercury is not in HE in the strict sense(!), and yet the IAU didn't see any problem with that when writing its 2006 definition that required HE for planets (and dwarf planets too). This kind of suggests to me that either the term HE is not being understood in a strict sense in the IAU definition, or the definition is just being ignored in favour of the bald list. Now that MESSENGER happened, it's beyond doubt that Mercury is not in HE; the fact that nobody made any noises about it suggests that at least one of my conjectures is correct. (Okay, you could argue that they wouldn't want to demote their planet of study, but even then it could have been spun as "the IAU definition needs work", which didn't happen either.) Even more strongly: you'd think that doubts about Ceres being in HE would be music to the ears of Plutophiles, because one of the strongest counters to Pluto alone as a planet is "what about Ceres" – but no one made a fuss. And even more interestingly, Ortiz had no problem calling Haumea a DP while suggesting that it could not be in HE.

So, the definition of planets and dwarf planets says HE, but no one connects it to those cases. This makes me think that asking for strict HE may, at the very least, be falling into a trap of not getting some unstated context. I remind that the IAU definition of a planet does not define "clearing the neighbourhood" either, and if we were to overlook some context on that, we'd be back to saying Jupiter is not a planet because of trojan asteroids. This could very well be a similar case.

It seems to me safer to use the actual statements. Well, according to their site, Ceres is a dwarf planet. And while I've indeed seen doubts about Ceres being in strict-sense HE, it certainly seems to me that Ceres' status as a DP is not actually questioned by astronomers or planetary scientists. That's actually an even clearer situation than, say, Quaoar (which the IAU does not recognise as a DP, but quite a few serious scientists do, and anyway the IAU admits that there may be more dwarf planets than the five they recognised).

Therefore, I think it's best to call Ceres an unqualified DP, reflecting both the IAU (which names it as one on their pages) and common usage. The fact that it's not in strict HE seems somehow unrelated in actual usage, despite the way the definition is phrased. Calling Ceres only a possible DP, while perhaps reflecting the strict letter of the IAU definition, seems not to follow any actual source. It seems to be the result of original-to-WP interpretation of the IAU definition, and I worry that it overlooks some context that was meant to be understood, just like a reading of the IAU definition that excludes Jupiter for its trojans would. Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quaoar (which the IAU does not recognise as a DP)" -- the IAU is not in the business of recognizing DPs, so the fact that they don't recognize a body as a DP means nothing at all. Haumea and Makemake were special cases, part of a bureaucratic compromise as to which committees got to review proposed names for which bodies. That decision has nothing to do with the status of any other body, and the IAU even made a provision for Haumea and Makemake turning out not to be DPs.

That quibble aside, I don't have a problem with any of your suggestions in principle. Grundy, Noll & Buie et al. state that Orcus is a DP, even though their research only shows it to be a solid body. If we stuck to fairly recent RS's (Tancredi and Brown are both rather dated), we could say that Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong (per NASA), Ceres, Quaoar and Orcus "are" DP's, as far as we know, and that Salacia and Sedna remain possibilities. The WP articles for those bodies could start with something like "Orcus is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper Belt in resonance with Neptune," with a RS stating that it's a dwarf planet, or that "Salacia is a large trans-Neptunian object and possible dwarf planet." Brown's judgements should probably be removed from leads as being a decade out of date. We also might want to sometimes fudge things a bit by using the word "planetoid". In the body of the article, we could get into why people believe Orcus or whatever to be a DP, but that's no different than saying Hittite is an Indo-European language in the lead and info box and then getting into why people believe that to be true, as well as reporting on minority theories that it's not (e.g. Indo-Hittite). The same of course would be true of Ceres: "Ceres is the largest asteroid and sole dwarf planet in the asteroid belt", with unexplained anomalies in its shape left to the body of the article. Or "Mercury is the smallest planet and the closest to the Sun", with its deviations from HE covered in the text.

Personally, I think that would be a much more practical approach to our articles. The problem we'd run into is that our DP article is a FA, and it strictly follows the IAU definition. It could be that it should be rewritten to follow a more practical definition (a DP is what RS's say is a DP, presenting the IAU as just one of several RS's) or have its FA status reviewed. But we don't want two FA's contradicting each other, with one saying "dwarf planet" is a term of convenience for world-like bodies, and the other saying it's a technical term with a precise definition. As you point out, the reality is that no-one pays much attention to the IAU definition. But for the FA 'dwarf planet' to reflect that reality, we'd need RS's that that is the case. Or, if there's consensus that we devote too much space to finicky definitions, we could gut the DP article, leaving all but a summary of the definition to "IAU definition of a planet", revoke its FA status and merge it with an abbreviated 'list of possible DPs'.

If there are no objections to me removing claims in the DP article than a DP is a category strictly defined by the IAU, so there would be no contradiction if Ceres were promoted to FA, then I have no objection to Serendipodous wording this article the way he wants to. — kwami (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the DP article should just say that the IAU formalised HE, but scientists use it more loosely (and as an example, we can cite Ortiz saying Haumea is a DP but that it can't be in HE). Actually, it seems not far from that. Even the IAU sometimes talks more loosely: A dwarf planet is an object in orbit around the Sun that is large enough (massive enough) to have its own gravity pull itself into a round (or nearly round) shape. (So, it just needs to be round, and have enough gravity for that to be the cause. No "coincidentally round" objects like Phobos, of course.)

Judging from Google Scholar results, some sources simply call Quaoar a DP, and those that demur still say it's likely. So, maybe "highly likely DP" is the best way to go here. Haumea seems universally called a DP, maybe because the IAU naming it as a presumed one. So I don't think it'd be too different: the IAU five can get called unqualified DPs, and for example Quaoar can be called a highly likely DP. Which is more or less the distinction the tables at dwarf planet already make: the almost-certain candidates are included, but the IAU five are highlighted. More iffy ones like Salacia can then get the "probable" qualifier.

Does Grundy think that not being solid necessarily excludes DP-hood? If you take the HE idea it should, but if you take the idea of shape, then maybe not, right? Couldn't, say, Chaos and Varda still be round even if they aren't solid? Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Methone is round under its own gravity. So is any large rubble pile. So yeah, I suspect being solid (in the sense of no interstitial spaces) is sine qua non. As for Grundy et al., yeah, they refer to solid bodies as DPs, but not dark, low-density bodies like G!kun||'homdima.

The site you linked to is 'Astronomy for the Public'. It's dumbed down for public consumption. It would be different if they said "like Vesta or Pallas", or gave some other specific example. For a RS of the IAU's position, we need a formal statement, publication in Icarus or the like.

Anyway, the IAU didn't invent the term. Alan Stern did. So it's really not NPOV to use their definition, which can be explained in detail at 'IAU definition of planet'. I'll start editing the DP article to be more neutral, though it may take a while. Unless you want to -- you might be a better choice, since I've gotten into so many quarrels about this.

I do object to making the IAU the gate-keeper. That's not their role. They didn't claim it and don't want it. If we're not going to follow a strict definition, then we need to follow RS's, which isn't the IAU but the researchers who actually work on these objects. All objects down to Orcus are called DPs by the people who investigate them. I have my doubts, personally, but TRUTH. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have the quote from Grundy? I didn't remember seeing it, but it's likely I just missed it somehow. And yes, Methone and Phobos rather do make it an obvious requirement.

Is there someone who doubts Sedna? Or is it just following the Grundy et al. study, because its density is unknown? Double sharp (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Grundy et al. (2019) 'Mutual Orbit Orientations of Transneptunian Binaries', Icarus 334: 62–78. Just search 'dwarf'.

I would think everyone would doubt Sedna, unless you're like Stern and accept Proteus. Its estimated size puts it in Grundy et al's transition range, and I wonder how realistic the 10% error bar is on its size. Though if its albedo really is 32%, that suggests resurfacing or at least recent outgassing, which is promising. And if its albedo is below the transition guestimate of 20%, then it would have to be > 1260±100 km, which would also be promising. So yeah, doubt, but not too much. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, since Ceres is now called a DP here as a result of this discussion, I guess that resolves the problem as far as this article goes. Double sharp (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kwami and thanks for bringing this up. You happy now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy if I can make the DP article consistent with this one. I've had edit wars there before, with people insisting that a DP is what the IAU defines it to be, not how astronomers actually use the term. As long as the DP article can say, basically, 'A' is how Stern (who coined the term) uses it; 'B' is how the IAU defines it, which essentially everyone ignores; and 'C D E' are how other astronomers have used it, so that what is or is not a DP is a matter of usage rather than exact definition, then this article is good. But if at DP there is consensus that this article is a FA, it must adhere to the letter of the law, then to be consistent we won't be able to say here than Ceres is a DP, unless someone finds better sources than we currently have. But I don't think there's any reason to hold up FA review for that -- it's a terminological quibble that doesn't have much real effect on this article. This article shouldn't be held hostage to that one. If there are irreconcilable differences between the two, then we'll have to start a broader discussion. But yesterday I made edits that a few years ago would've sparked a furious edit-war, and so far not a peep. So maybe it won't be a problem this time around. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine to have Ceres presented as a DP without caveat, and will be happy with the article once we make this article consistent with others by removing the specious claim that Ceres is the smallest DP. — kwami (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I want, all I ever wanted, was an official declaration stating that Orcus is a dwarf planet that was not reliant on the opinions of individual astronomers or planetary scientists. Yes, plenty of astronomers believe that Orcus is a dwarf planet. That is true. Plenty of astronomers also believe Planet Nine exists. That doesn't mean it does. There has to be some authority to represent the standard consensus in the field. The IAU, as far as I can tell, is that authority. Just because they're currently doing a terrible job doesn't mean it's Wikipedia's job to pick up the slack. That's not Wikipedia's job; it's

WP:SYNTH. Serendi ^podous 09:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

"All I want [is] an official declaration" -- you're not going to get one, because that's not science. Reality is not determined by diktat. An official declaration would mean that the IAU had abandoned their definition of a DP. Rather than being a physical definition, it would be an arbitrary, bureaucratic one. That was actually under consideration: Pluto and anything larger would be a 'planet', anything smaller would not -- but it was rejected as arbitrary. They're not going to resurrect something like that without another full meeting of the IAU, and I seriously doubt that's going to happen while this FA is pending. If it does -- if the IAU changes the definition of a DP -- then we can update this article at that time.

"not reliant on the opinions of individual ... scientists" -- but that's how science works.

"Plenty of astronomers also believe Planet Nine exists" -- show me one who has published a peer-reviewed article that identifies a particular object as Planet 9.

"There has to be some authority to represent the standard consensus in the field" -- no, there doesn't. You repeatedly show a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not authority. Science is evidence. Please read scientific method so you won't continue to waste our time.

And there's no SYNTH involved. I'm asking you to remove a claim that is contradicted by RS's. The claim itself is trivia that has no scientific value, so removing it detracts nothing from the article even assuming it's true. — kwami (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me I don't know how science works. Science works by peer review and collective understanding. Aristarchus was right that the Earth moved around the Sun, so were Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus. But the scientific community didn't accept it until Newton and Halley provided incontrovertable evidence. In this situation the evidence is still not incontovertable. We haven't imaged Orcus's disc; all evidence we have for its sphericity is indirect. There are reliable sources in this article that call Ceres the smallest dwarf planet. That said, I also know how Wikipedia works and know when I'm outnumbered. Serendi ^podous 13:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Science works by peer review and collective understanding." Exactly. I wish you'd apply that standard to yourself.

You demand one standard for POV's you support, and another for ones you oppose. The evidence is not incontrovertible for either Orcus or Ceres. You're the one who wanted to abandon strict adherence to the evidence and follow usage in RS's. Now when RS's disagree with you, you object to that. Only the sources that agree with you should count. That's simply hypocrisy. — kwami (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you're doing the same thing! Serendi ^podous 14:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How am I doing the same thing? We have some sources that say A, and some that say not-A. You want to say A as if it were TRUTH and ignore the rest. I want to cover the different POVs per WEIGHT. I've shifted POV over the years as the sources have, and am willing to shift again if someone provides actual evidence. You have always rigidly adhered to what you think of as authority, regardless of RS's or evidence. You said it above: "there must be an authority!", which has been your mantra for a decade. It's a completely unscientific attitude. — kwami (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it: it doesn't matter that Orcus is not universally accepted as a DP. What matters is that a lot of significant astronomers who are RS's accept it as one, and that a lot of those significant astronomers saying so are subject-matter experts: they are actually working on those TNO DP candidates. Because to them, the statement "Ceres is the smallest DP" would be wrong. They have a significant view making up a significant percentage of RS's. I don't think they should be completely ignored.

Which objects the IAU has actually accepted does not especially interest me. They might have set themselves up in a gatekeeping role in the planet-definition resolution, saying An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects to the dwarf planet or to another category. But has this process ever been established? Since then, the IAU has outright said that there might be more DPs than the five they accepted. Which is exactly what you would expect if their definition was primary rather than their list of what they'd actually accepted. If it was their list that was primary, then they would be saying there that there were five DPs and that any more would be dependent on IAU processes. Evidently they've changed their tune since the resolution. Perhaps they decided that they did not really want to be in the business of gatekeeping the DPs at all. That would explain why, even though Tancredi gave his presentation at an IAU symposium back in 2009, and advised the IAU to at least officially accept Sedna, Orcus, and Quaoar, they've done nothing for over a decade.

At least saying that it's the smallest IAU-acknowledged DP and that many scientists think there could be smaller ones would be a true statement. A statement of doubtful importance IMHO, because (1) as I've said, the IAU is not really in the business of accepting DPs, and (2) it was considering even smaller Hygiea as a possibility in its draft definition of a planet, showing that this particular size threshold wasn't particularly important for it. But at least it would be a true and incontrovertible statement.

Incidentally, incontrovertible evidence was not exactly the standard most scientists used when it came to heliocentrism, surely? Newton gave a theory that heliocentrism naturally came out of. That is not the same as incontrovertible evidence for heliocentrism. Wasn't it only in 1728 that stellar aberration was found by James Bradley and proved that the Earth moved? But surely heliocentrism was already the standard view among astronomers by that date. Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that's why I said Newton and Halley, since it was the return of Halley's comet that confirmed Newtonian mechanics. Serendi ^podous 15:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halley predicted in 1705 that the comet would return in 1758, which it did (although he would not live to see it). By which time Bradley had already found stellar aberration. I presume heliocentrism can only have been more standard among astronomers in 1758 than it was in 1728. :) Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after I typed all that up, it turns out that the statement claiming Ceres as the smallest DP was removed anyway. I guess that probably resolves the issue. Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nrco0e

Hi @Serendipodous, just checking in here. I'll be reviewing the older sources and adding some comments here from time to time. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 08:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transits of planets from Ceres

This section seems pretty shoddy, if not trivial to the article IMO. There's only one source used for this, and both archived and original links are dead. I've checked this link to "Solex" in Wayback Machine and it turns out to be some freeware program by a chemistry professor. It's almost a decade old now according to the date of last update, so the ephemerides are likely outdated or inaccurate. Unless there is another reliable source to back the dates given in this section, it's all

WP:OR

.

Couldn't find an alternative source, so removed. Serendi ^podous 12:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Additional imaging sessions, at increasingly better resolution took place on 25 January 4, 12, 19 and 25 February 1 March, and 10 and 15 April."

This is a bit difficult to read. Are there supposed to be commas separating the days of January/February/March from each other?

revised. Serendi ^podous 23:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Nrco0e and thanks for the comments. You happy how? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from TRM

Lead

"minor-planet designation" our own article doesn't hyphenate this.

(Comment -- it should, per the MOS and use in e.g. International Comet Quarterly. The MPC doesn't use the phrase much, and then it's capitalized. — kwami (talk))

Well if it was being used adjectively then perhaps but here it's just saying that it has a "minor planet designation". Or is our own article in the wrong place? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is. I moved it a decade ago, but it was moved back. Per our hyphen guidelines at the MOS, "minor planet designation" would be a minor designation of planets, "minor-planet designation" a designation of minor planets. People often don't bother to hyphenate, of course, especially when capitalizing. Here (discussing guidelines for naming comets) and here (on Pluto) they have "minor-planet designation", "minor-planet number", "permanent-number designation". But sometimes they omit the hyphen (once 'minor planet number' on the Pluto article; occasionally inconsistent with hyphens in other phrases); that just needs a bit of copy-editing. I've tried checking at the MPC, but AFAICT they don't seem to use the phrase much (in context, they just refer to "temporary/permanent designations"). Here's one from the IAU/MPC naming guidelines, where they need to disambiguate minor-planet designation from comet designation:

4.4 If the minor-planet designation was published before the realization is made that the object is a comet, the comet will retain the minor-planet designation. Otherwise, a new comet designation will be assigned.

4.5 If the object receives a permanent minor-planet number prior to its recognition as a comet, it shall be accorded "dual status". As such, it both retains the permanent minor-planet number and receives a new periodic-comet number.

Also here. — kwami (talk)

"The first asteroid discovered, Ceres was first" first first... repetitive.
"at Palermo Astronomical Observatory." the Palermo... and say where that is.
Do you link asteroid in the opening sentences of the lead?
"be rounded by its own gravity" this needs explanation.
"peaking at opposition" again, jargon and indecipherable to most readers who aren't astrophyicists.
"Despite this, Ceres's small size means that any internal ocean of liquid water it may have possessed has likely frozen by now, though brines still flow through the outer mantle and reach the surface, allowing cryovolcanoes such as Ahuna Mons to form at the rate of about one every 50 million years" 52-word sentence. Break it up.
"tenuous, transient atmosphere" link atmosphere.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said, there's a long way to go here for me. I'll do it in bite-sized chunks because I have a lot of other things ongoing. Feel free to ping me if I'm taking too long to get back to the review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: All issues addressed. Serendi ^podous 09:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

"For a time" not particularly encyclopedic. fixed
"Mars and Jupiter" I normally expect to see items linked in the lead also linked on their first appearance in the main body.fixed
"and mystic" what does that mean in this sense? Our "featured article" calls him a "German mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, and natural philosopher". The word "mystic" doesn't appear anywhere in his biography.
- Well I have a citation that says he was. The guy believed that the ratios of planetary orbits needed to follow a preconceived pattern to agree with God's design. You OK with leaving that unexplained? Serendi ^podous 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you've already said he thought it was part of God's design, you don't need to ascribe him with "mystic". I don't believe that people on Twitter who say that Covid is all part of God's design are mystics, I just think they're bonkers. Probably best to just stick with reality. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. Serendi ^podous 20:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" forever?" [19]" no space before ref.fixed
"near 2.8 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun" could we put that into real human terms on this occasion for context for non-astrophysics readers?fixed

(Comment: IMO, "real human terms" would be AUs, because km distances of this scale are beyond our comprehension. Though it could be explained a x-times the distance of the Earth from the Sun. If we do add km, though, they should be a conversion, because the TB Law is best explained in terms of AUs. — kwami (talk))

Sure, but the conversion to km happens later in the article which is a little bit odd for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. Missed that. — kwami (talk)

"editor of the astronomical journal" was it a German astronomical journal?fixed
" the asteroids" link.fixed

That's a SEAOFBLUE issue, so it's likely to be reverted some day. The Pallas etc. articles link to asteroid also. — kwami (talk)

"was Giuseppe Piazzi" link.fixed
"observed ... observations" repetitive in a single sentence.fixed
"Titius-Bode" en-dash.fixed
"At 2.8 AU from the..." sentences uses "law" three times...fixed
- You reverted your last fix. "It" is ambiguous here. [fixed myself] — kwami (talk)
"within 10% of its actual value".... of??
- Um, yes that is generally the accepted preposition to use when employing percentages. Serendi ^podous 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The actual value I meant. What was the "actual value" that the "within 10%" was?? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. fixed.Serendi ^podous 20:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That wasn't a fix. It's within 10%, not within 90%. [fixed myself] — kwami (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"as Hera, though" why in italics?fixed
"preferred Juno" ditto?fixed
"It would be replaced" It was replaced.fixed
"distance of 419 million km" do this conversion above, where I suggested.fixed
"Ceres was assigned a planetary symbol" when? I'm only asking really because in the same para you go on to say "remain listed ... for half a century".

(Comment: I found refs of 2 ppl who suggested it in 1802. I'm not sure it was ever "assigned" in an official sense, just that this is AFAICT the only symbol that people other than the suggesters ever used. — kwami (talk))

The date the symbol was first suggested is given elsewhere. "half a century" is from discovery, not from getting the symbol. And I'm not sure we can say when between 1852 and 1867 it stopped being considered a planet. (Indeed it was called a planet into the 20th century, as were other asteroids.) I changed to "for over half a century", but I don't see anything that needs to be fixed here. — kwami (talk)

"Then, in 2006" is "Then," adding anything here?fixed
"have "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" this is linked here, but is this the same thing as "whether the gap had been cleared by the gravity of Jupiter" above?
- No. Jupiter has cleared its own neighborhood, not any other planets'. Serendi ^podous 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean does "cleared" mean the same thing each time here? If so, why wouldn't we link "cleared" the first time? If not, it's confusing because it appears to be using the same terminology for different things. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC) fixed[reply]

That's the next section done. Just out of interest, I see in the infobox the use of "curly" punctuation, "0.854″ to 0.339″" is this MOS compliant? Also in the infobox I see "A899 OF1943 XB" as alternative designations but they're not mentioned in the article and thus not seemingly referenced anywhere? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(A899 is a retroactive MP number, found at JPL but not at the MPC [or maybe the reverse, I forget]. There's another number or two that were assigned to an object that was later found to be an error for Ceres. I don't know how notable either of them is. — kwami (talk))

Sure, where are they mentioned/referenced in the main part of the article? Or are we not referencing such things? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We usually don't bother, but this is a FA. So yeah, best to either ref (and maybe explain in the text) or delete. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did find an article explaining A899 OF, but can't access it. Maybe someone else can. Also, it is in German.

Based on the way these designations work, this and 1943 XB must be claimed asteroid discoveries that later turned out to be just Ceres.

″ in the infobox is not curly punctuation, it's a

arcseconds. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

IMO the two MP numbers for misidentified objects are trivia. There are more important things we don't bother with, so I don't know why we'd include those when they're not even important enough for a RD. The retroactive number is more reasonable, IMO, but the fact that the MPC itself doesn't use it make me doubt its value. — kwami (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are trivia, but they do seem to be often included. For an example with lots of them, see 333 Badenia, with no fewer than nine provisional designations included. So if we decide that they are not valuable inclusions, then presumably we should remove them from a lot more asteroid articles. Double sharp (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I take it back. 120 Lachesis also has some extra provisional designations, but they're not at its article. So I now think it's fine to remove the trivia of A899 OF and 1943 XB from the Ceres infobox. I've just hidden them. Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the orbital ref is JPL from just two years ago, the numbers have changed. E.g. e from 0.0760 to 0.0783. — kwami (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit

"Ceres follows an orbit.." sentence has "orbit" three times, repetitive reading.fixed
Next sentence has "orbit" four times...fixed
"the Gefion asteroid family.[47] The asteroids of this family" merge these, "the Gefion asteroid family, members of which..."fixed
"have spectral properties" in what sense?fixed
"makeup" isn't "composition" a better word here?fixed
"over the age of the Solar System" could link this.fixed
"temporary 1:1 resonant orbital relationships" what does this mean?fixed
"up to 2 million" two.fixed
"with Pallas (their" overlinked.fixed

Rotation and axial tilt

"hopping an average of 3 times" hopping? and 3->three.
- That's the word used in the source. Serendi ^podous 12:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dawn, the first spacecraft.." link again here.fixed
" of 3 million" threefixed

Issues addressed. Serendi ^podous 12:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Takes me to "Geology". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

You link "Moon" twice and it's just struck me that the first one is an easter egg, i.e. "similar to the situation on the Moon and Mercury" should probably have "situation on the" included in the pipe. fixed
"partial differentiation of its rocky fraction" what does that mean?fixed
"the Hubble Space Telescope reveal" link.fixed
"in Ernutet crater" are any other craters on Ceres named? Shouldn't this article cover the major geographical features by name?
- There are 151 named features on Ceres. You want me to cover all of them? Serendi ^podous 20:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well this is FA. I imagine that if they're not covered here, they ought to be covered in a Features of Ceres or similar article, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well that's what Geology of Ceres and List of geological features on Ceres are for. Serendi ^podous 21:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologise that I may have missed the clear links to those articles at this point. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Dawn revealed that" Dawn is overlinked here. fixed
"is just 284 km" but the entire diameter of Ceres is 939.4 km, so why "just"? That's almost a third of the diameter of the asteroid.
- Yes but models had suggested it should have 10-15 craters 400 km in diameter. Serendi ^podous 20:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would drop the "just". It feels like there's too much implied by it, especially as a non-expert who finds it hard to conceive that a crater could occupy 1/3 of an oblate spheroid's diameter... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC) OK[reply]
    - Well, Mercury, the Moon, and Mars all have craters proportionately that big. :) The South Pole–Aitken basin on our moon has 70% of the diameter of the moon itself. Rheasilvia on Vesta has 90%. So such huge craters are not unknown in the solar system, though I agree that it's surprising for those not in the know. But I guess the sentences are still clearly connected. Double sharp (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"early cryovolcanism.[69] Three" link. fixed
"15 km (10 mi) of elevation" avoid starting sentences with numerals. fixed
"to be a cryovolcano and" link that first time. fixed
"the largest confirmed impact basin on Ceres" you already said just that, the section above. fixed
"named Cerealia Facula" why in italics? Why two words? Why is facula linked in the first use?
- I thought you wanted first uses to be linked. Serendi ^podous 20:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant why isn't it linked first time?? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC) fixed[reply]
"east, Vinalia Faculae" similar, why italics? fixed
"Near-infrared" could link. fixed
You link "sodium carbonate" but not, for instance, "ammonium chloride"? fixed I think
"Cerealia dome"? that was a facula last time?
- different thing. Serendi ^podous 20:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - what is this then? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - added. Serendi ^podous 21:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Tectonic features". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tectonics et seq.

"Although Ceres lacks plate tectonics,[74] with the vast majority of its surface features linked either to impacts or to cryovolcanic activity, several potentially tectonic features have been tentatively identified on Ceres, particularly in its eastern hemisphere." just basic grammar here. why repeat Ceres in this lengthy sentence?
"than 105 m (344 ft) on " in diameter?
"These boulders are". They were...
"larger than 100 m (300 ft)." again, in diameter?
"higher latitudes than at lower latitudes" repetitive prose.
"possess salinity of " link.
"40% or 50% " not 45? or 49? Come on, professional prose here.
"is on the order of 1000" of the order, not "on" the order.

Honestly, I'm getting to the point where I think this needs booting back to some kind of peer review. I'm not really here to pick up basic English issues. I'm out for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm sorry but I launched a peer review before I took this to FAC, and you weren't there. No one seemed interested in peer reviewing it when the time would have been apropos. Serendi ^podous 21:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No need to apologise to me. I don't frequent PR, that's something that others use. I never use it, it's dead as far as I'm concerned, but the prose here needs a review. I can't keep doing it as part of FAC, sorry. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The review is currently twice the length of the article. It's not what I'd expect at FAC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Taking a gander at the sourcing now. Some questions:

What are the criteria for using and not using particular identifiers (such as arXiv)?
Source #5 and #37 either do not explain who published and authored it, or only incompletely. fixed
Regarding #6, I know that
WP:CALC
applies to FAC, but are we sure that we can calculate these values simply by using a formula? Planetary bodies are not simple spheres after all.
Why is #12 formatted differently from other Icarus sources?
- Is it? Serendi ^podous 13:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is (the extra link). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's because, unlike the other citations, it possesses a link to the full article, rather than merely an abstract. Serendi ^podous 20:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
#23 isn't there a better source for this astronomical community fact than The Guardian?
- subbed with a book Serendi ^podous 13:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take that the pronunciation of "cererean" didn't change over the last 100 years.

I can't find it in any recent dict, but the pronunciation of those old sources is what we would expect in English from the Latin genitive singular Cereris. Pronunciations of Latin terms typically don't deviate from the expected one unless the word is common enough for an alt pronunciation to become established. E.g. 'Patroclus' has an irregular pronunciation (stress on the 'o') because Pope changed the stress placement to fit the meter of his translation of the Iliad, and it stuck because generations of students were raised on it. — kwami (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Uranus, I guess. Double sharp (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#34 does not seem to be a good source for the claim that the sickle is the astronomical symbol. fixed
#61 is not being used as a source, I think it would be better put as a footnote. fixed
I note some slight inconsistencies in citation format; sometimes the title of the ref is first and sometimes the authors.
- Some were due to incomplete citation, but most are just because some citations don't have listed authors. Serendi ^podous 20:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
#142 is also formatted differently from other sources. fixed

For what it's worth all the sources used seem FAC-suitable to me, but note that I didn't perform a spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch about #6. Ceres is nearly an oblate spheroid, and the formulae given for that at

doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.11.023 this is quite complicated. Double sharp (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

User Kheider is someone we could expect to get it right. — kwami (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's ping him then: @Kheider: Double sharp (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/ceres/by-the-numbers/ be good for avoiding WP:CALC? -- Kheider (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe [I am a little unsure how they got their data]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a RS. Unless we notice that they got it wrong, it should be good enough. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The surface area they quote is incompatible with the dimensions we quote. (For Wolfram Alpha, you need to give the semi-axes.) Instead the surface area they quote is exactly what you would get if you took their equatorial radius, substituted it into

A=4\pi r^{2}

, and didn't know anything about significant figures. And in fact, because they take the equatorial radius rather than the mean radius (and because Ceres is oblate), they get a value that is actually further off than the one we currently have. So no, I'm not happy with this source. But all the conflicts do disappear if you cut off one significant figure from what we give, and I suppose that would also take care of the surface gravity issue. Double sharp (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1029/2020JE006640 gives Ceres surface gravity as 0.27 m·s⁻² (we have 0.28 m·s⁻² per formula). No source for how they got it, but agreement seems fair (close to theoretical value for a sphere; I can believe that oblateness affects it to this extent). For practical purposes, it's probably best thought of as 0.03g. Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

*Sigh* I should know by now not to trust NASA/JPL websites, and shouldn't have called them RS. Your 2nd source, though, I should hope they got it right! They only give a single number, though. If the variation in surface g by location isn't significant, then we can ignore rotational effects. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope so too, since their conclusion probably doesn't depend on that level of accuracy. After all, they compare Iapetus and Charon as having similar gravity to Ceres. But at least it is a referenced value. I should like to be able to calculate it to check, though. Double sharp (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Having noted The Rambling Man's oppose I have read through some sections of this article myself. It is quite clear that despite the large amount of work by the nominator and numerous reviewers the article is not ready for FAC in terms of prose. I am therefore archiving it. I would suggest PR and/or GoCE and/or involving a collaborator with a sound grasp of the prose expectations at FAC. There is clearly a lot of work to do, so the usual two week hiatus will apply; although I would expect the work needed on this article to take longer than that. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.