Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Planetary nebula
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Planetary nebula
Planetary nebulae are my area of professional expertise, and I've done a lot of work to expand this article. I believe it now contains a lot of detailed information, without being incomprehensible or unnecessarily technical, and so I think it is worthy of being considered for featured status. Worldtraveller 10:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support.
Object for now. A great read but the lead needs to be longer and summarise more of the article content. I'd prefer the references to be un-numbered and in alphabetical order, but this is a quibble, not an objection. Filiocht 11:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)- OK, I've expanded the lead section to a more useful size. On the references, if they were un-numbered, would you prefer to omit numbers in the text where the references are cited? Worldtraveller 11:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No need, they're fine as they are. As a strict amateur, I really like this article, by the way. Filiocht 12:48, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I've expanded the lead section to a more useful size. On the references, if they were un-numbered, would you prefer to omit numbers in the text where the references are cited? Worldtraveller 11:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. This is a great article. I don't know enough about the subject to verify the material specifically, but your references are great. Good job. - Taxman 16:58, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Like Taxman I'm in no position to verify most of the article, but I think it's a well-written piece. Just one little thing. Could you place references like this [1]? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 20:48, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a worthy article. I would suggest that the fact that they have nothing to do with planets be included in the opening section. Jacob1207 21:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I see no flaws in the material, excellent detail. Would also recommend the reference alteration suggested by User:MacGyverMagic above, as the current version can easily be mistaken for unlabelled external links - I know I did so. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Maybe "Observations" section could be expanded? GeneralPatton 22:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Altered the references as suggested, and added mention of the reason for the name to the lead section. Happy to expand "Observations", do you have any specific extra detail in mind that you'd like to see? Worldtraveller 23:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'd love a more detailed story how our understanding of them evolved, you could take a look at this 1911 Britannica article [1] GeneralPatton 00:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Have added a couple of paras. I can add a lot more but need to dig up some references so can't do it straight away.
- I'd love a more detailed story how our understanding of them evolved, you could take a look at this 1911 Britannica article [1] GeneralPatton 00:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Altered the references as suggested, and added mention of the reason for the name to the lead section. Happy to expand "Observations", do you have any specific extra detail in mind that you'd like to see? Worldtraveller 23:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
weak object. could you please do something about the image attributions. half are listed as PD but with no source. I believe all FAC should have 100% valid images. If you cant find source feel free to substitute some other image, i'm sure theres enough public domain material. After this changeI will support. Alkivar 23:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)- All image source information now added. Worldtraveller 00:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support Evil Monkey 04:09, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Great article! -Vsmith 04:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Jeronimo 08:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Reads well. Added few more ilinks to lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support Like some of the others have said, im personally not that familier with Planetary nebula's, but a top featured article should make sense to even the most average of lay persons - and I certainly fit into that category! IMHO the article is stunningly well presented - perhaps it has been blessed with a topic that is so beautiful - but regardless this article certainly maximises NASA's photo bank, and some well written sections certainly helps too! CGorman 21:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Great astro article . -Joseph (Talk) 17:51, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
- Support, although I'd like to see the word nova used. Is a planetary nebula formed by a nova, or is that something else? This point should be clarified. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 00:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Very much support - almost missed my chance to support an excellent astronomy article. There are lots more to do :) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
