Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eris (dwarf planet)

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 promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Eris (dwarf planet)

former fac

Nominating for FA status as per peer review. Serendipodous 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support: The article looks well written and there are a few minor points.
(1) The one information lacking is the day-period on the planet. if the data doesn't exist, the same needs to be mentioned.
2. I would suggest that the earlier term - 2003 UB313 be added to the lead para.
3. Also in the references, there are a few names of professors who don't have wiki pages. i would suggest that the wiki link be removed for these people or pages created. Kalyan 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the article does mention Eris's day, but it refers to it as its "sidereal rotation period." Trying to change it just screws with the template, so it's best to leave well alone. Where they got that 8 hours figure though I have no idea, as I have yet to find a source that confirms it. Serendipodous 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh i see, it is in the template while i was looking in the article. Do you see any value in adding a sentence in the artice?. Atleast it will make it very explicit. Kalyan 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Points addressed has been stricken. Kalyan 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I haven't found any sources that explicitly mention the length of Eris's day, so I wouldn't want to make any claims. I think the best thing to do is just delete the line from the template. Serendipodous 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. just leave it un-touched. Kalyan 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks well written and precise. c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 08:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I think that this has some potential as an FA. It is within size limits, is well referenced, has good grammar, is well written, has a standard amount of wikilinks, and is well-structured (in a sense). The only two things that I think can be improved are that perhaps the images can be given more of a balance and that perhaps the "See Also" section can be given a few more links. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support — Good work, with only a few minor issues that I could see:
  • A reference would be good for the sentence: "Due to its orbit, surface temperatures vary between about −232 and −248 degrees Celsius."
  • The "3000⁺²⁷⁰₋₁₀₀ km" (3000{{±|270|100}} km) notation is not displaying the values properly on my browser. Should it be 3000^+270 -100 km? If so, perhaps that also needs to be explained to the reader?

The article left me a little hungry for information that would explain Eris' high eccentricity and inclination, but I could understand that might not be available. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The inclination and eccentricity are explained (somewhat) in the "Classification" section. Perhaps they could be elaborated upon? Serendipodous 10:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good 'nuf. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, well done. Is the section "Size, Mass and Density" not in sentence case for some reason? -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 19:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support fulfils criteria. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Looks a good article, I've not checked everything but from reading the text here's a couple of points

• consistent use of either celsius or kelvin might make sense
• 'the surface ices' is mentioned too early. At this point there hasn't been anything about the composition of Eris.
• 'various ices' - again this is mentioned without any explanation. Could we have something more about what we might expect these ices to consist of? Clathrate hydrate & Methane clathrate seem to be articles to link to. JMiall 08:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also Brown's approval of the dwarf planet tag is in the wrong place. The lead should not be introducing information that isn't mentioned in the rest of the article + I'm not sure that this important enough to put in the lead anyway, can it just be moved? JMiall 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.