Talk:Comet White-Ortiz-Bolelli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Comet White-Ortiz-Bolelli was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Astronomy WikiProject Astronomy
WikiProject Astronomical objects WikiProject Astronomical Objects
WikiProject Solar System WikiProject Solar System

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Delisted GA

There are no images. slambo 18:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no suitably licensed images of this comet available, so lack of them ought not to prevent it from being a GA. [[User:Worldt

raveller|Worldtraveller]] 12:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

added Image:Kreutz Sungrazers family tree.gif to the article and promoted to GA, I have no problem with lack of usable images Gnangarra 01:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I should have thought of adding that image, as the comet is identified on it. Worldtraveller 11:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA (2008)

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of March 1, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

The main reason for delisting is the lack of inline citations, which hasn't improved since the notice directly above in 2006. Additionally, there are some minor points of wp:jargon and wp:manual of style which should be addressed:

  • In the lead, a layman's reference to the meaning of "apparent magnitude" should be included, perhaps in the form "X times as bright as the full moon"
  • When providing dates, the year in question should be included at least the first time in each section
  • The section heading "A sungrazer" should be changed as headings ought not start with articles. In this case "Sungrazer" doesn't sound much better to me, but I can't immediately think of anything else. See WP:HEAD for more.
  • The term "perihelion" is used without explanation for a general audience. Such jargon should be avoided if at all possible, but if use of the term is crucial to the point being made, its usage should be explained at a level accessible to a general audience. For more information, see WP:JARGON and WP:Make technical articles accessible.
  • In terms of coverage, 1) I wonder if information on the size and composition of the comet should be included, or if that information does not exist, the article should say so. 2) If the comet's orbit is known, wouldn't there be predictions of when it will return and whether it will be visible again?

Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated and should easily regain GA status. --jwandersTalk 06:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)