Talk:Comet Hyakutake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comet Hyakutake is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Comet Hyakutake appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 4, 2006.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

The images we've got here at the moment are not that great. If anyone can find any appropriately licensed colour images showing the comet at its best, that would be great. Worldtraveller 16:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have tried Google images, I take it? This nice one is claimed to be from HST [1]. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Had tried googling, but hadn't found anything appropriately licensed. The one you've found looks good, I've added it to the article. Worldtraveller 15:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image placement

I moved the images from all on the right back to alternating left and right. I really feel this looks a lot better in terms of article presentation. If the general consensus is that all on the right would be better of course I'll defer to that. Worldtraveller 18:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of the article

Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in the quality of this article. I haven't seen the version that was nominated back in March, but after I eagerly started reading the interesting article, I stumbled upon multiple grammatical mistakes and a few sentences that didn't make much sense. I'm in the process of fixing the mistakes and changing the references to {{ref}} and {{note}}. Any objections? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well as one of the main authors of the page I can only apologise :) Of course, fix it up in any way you think improves it. Happy to answer any questions if anything needs clarifying. Worldtraveller 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's an excellent read, and the time between March and now is nearly a year. Thanks for your work! Anyways, I've (hopefully) fixed it up, and changed all the references to {{note}} and {{ref}} format. Please check those to make sure I didn't accidentally attribute something to the wrong source, and feel free to check my edits to see that I didn't accidentally misinterpret any sentences. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fix ups! So nice to see a flood of edits on an FA that aren't all adding the word 'arse' in amusing places :) All the refs are fine except for one stray link which I removed, and I just made a few small wording changes where I thought a particular sense was important. Worldtraveller 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! A slight problem, though: when adding the {{ref}}s, I tried to match up the number that appeared with the number that showed on the bottom. Besides the fact that one of the references at the bottom was out of order, some of the refs were cited more than once; I had to use {{ref num}} ({{ref num|NAME|#}}) to force the numbers to match. By removing that one ref, the numbers all were automatically lowered; thus, I'm not sure that every ref is matched up to the right number. Because I'm not familiar with which links should go with what sources, would you mind reviewing this? Many thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the numbers, should all be correct now. Thanks again! Worldtraveller 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. The "click-back" links in the Reference section for numbers 6 and up do not work Vir 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. I can't figure it out, although Template talk:Ref says that they should backlink, but gives a caveat that I can't understand. Perhaps we should use {{ref label}}? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

From my experience, you will find the <ref>...</ref> format much easier to use (particularly if you want to change the order of refs). See Nobel Prize and Deus Caritas Est for places where I have used it recently. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Since when did Japanese have pharyngeals? I believe the pronunciation should probably be [çakɯ̥take]. --Ptcamn 08:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain about the devoiced vowel - it sounds like some sort of ejective in between the [k] and the [t]. I have no idea what's going on with the transcription in the article though - yours is definitely far superior.--Printf("Sam") 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Worldtraveller added it just under 11 months ago - diff - based on comments from Revth in the FAC discussion. I suspect the article may give the western attempts to get at the Japanese pronunciation, rather than what the Japanese actually say, but perhaps we should ask them? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation Revth first posted in the FAC discussion (/hjakutake/) was much closer than either /ħʝakutake/ or /ħʃakutake/ as far as phonemic transcription is concerned (Ptcamn's transcription is a detailed phonetic transcription, /hjakutake/ is a phonemic one). For the sake of the majority, who doesn’t necessarily understand the IPA, I wonder if it might not be best to just lay out the syllables (hya-ku-ta-ke) as this is all that is really required for an English speaker to grasp proper pronunciation (I think), as we have the same allophony on [h], and the devoicing is not a central feature. Then again, a phonetic transcription can't hurt. Of course, I'm not a native speaker, but my phonetic knowlege of the language is pretty good.--Printf("Sam") 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. I'd already edited the article, adding the pronunciation (and kanji), before Printf's comment.

I don't think hya-ku-ta-ke would be helpful, though -- most English speakers would be tempted to pronounce "hy" as "hai" before any vowel other than u. --Ptcamn 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)