Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 03:22, 12 April 2007.

[edit] Moon

It was only very recently that I came across this article and that I noticed that it is very close to, if not at FA level. I haven't made any considerable edits myself yet, but I'm convinced that both the subject and the article deserve to be FA. Therefore, I'm committed to personally take care of any comments to ensure the necessary improvements. Nick Mks 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. "Moon rocks", "Magnetic field", and "Gravity field" sections are all without citations. I'll check back in in a day or two and see if that gets addressed. I didn't bother to look further because of that. Quadzilla99 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's some more comments, keep in mind some of these may be in the text due to things I do not understand:
"The gravitational field of the Moon has been determined by the tracking of radio signals emitted by orbiting spacecraft." Has been is a little confusing, since these numbers presumably change over time shouldn't it be is? Do they no longer determine it this way?
"The Moon has only a very weak external magnetic field in comparison to the Earth." See this section of the MoS should probably have some sort of numbers in this section also.
Why are there several words bolded in the formation section? None of these redirects to the Moon article. Quadzilla99 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to take care of those. One thing I don't quite get though, concerning the gravitational field. I do believe that they had to do that only once, yes. Presumably the field indeed varies (very little) in time, but I don't think they measure it all the time. Nick Mks 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay as I said I may not understand some of the aspects, I wasn't aware if it was something they measured on more than one occasion. I changed to neutral I'll look it over tomorrow. The sentence regarding the weaknesses comparing the two should just say the moon has 100 and the earth has 200 or something like that, "relatively weak compared to" doesn't express things in any precise manner. So it still needs work see the link above to the section of the MoS I referred to, in general any section that says a property of the moon is weak or relatively compared to the earth, without mentioning numbers should probably replaced with "The Moon has less that 2% of the Earth's..." to make things definite and precise. Quadzilla99 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
For instance this:"The Moon has an external magnetic field of the order of one to a hundred nanotesla, very weak in comparison to the Earth's." Could be this:"The Moon has an external magnetic field of the order of one to a hundred nanotesla, approximately 2% that of Earth's." or "The Moon has an external magnetic field of the order of one to a hundred nanotesla, while the Earth has one of (x) to a hundred nanotesla." Quadzilla99 12:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, pending nitpicks Quite thorough, I assume you'll be able to fix the follosing few nitpicks:
  • "Its symbol is a crescent (☽)" - er - in what system? Surely not astrology?
Yes, I do believe that it is also the astrological symbol. I don't know how many lunar astronomers actually use it, I do know that us astrophysicists use the dotted circle (which also is astrological) for the Sun. Can anybody see the inline crescent by the way (it just gives a "box" in my case)? Nick Mks 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I see the inline crescent. I'm on an OSX Mac. Kaldari 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that you have to explain what an astrological symbol or astronomical symbol is. Hey, we have an article on that! Link to it, and I'll be happy. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 384,403 kilometres (238,857 miles), - link both units or neither (both is better)
  • 5,000–year-old - pick one kind of dash?
Nope. I specifically changed it that way per WP:DASH. That's my interpretation. I'm not a linguist. :-) Nick Mks 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
All right, the arguments about that are pretty arcane, I don't claim to understand them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh - Sandy thinks she does! (Below.)--AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • the normally occluded Far side of the Moon - lower case F
  • In fact, do a thorough check of the usage of cases in wikilinks throughout. For example: "Main articles: Solar eclipse and lunar eclipse" but "See also: Lunar phase, Earthshine, and Observing the Moon" - make up your mind how you're going to capitalize these kinds of "see also" links outside sentences, and stick to it.
  • impact feature - wikilink uncommon term (perhaps to impact crater)?
I presume you mean "impact basin"? I can't find "feature". Nick Mks 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That's strange, I could have sworn that was in the header. I guess I was hallucinating. Put it down to bad cheese. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • External links - can you explain each one more? For example, what kind site is each one going to take us to - Govt, scientific, commercial, hobbyist? Name each site. Consider using the Template:cite web.
This one I don't quite get. I do use "cite web". Which parameter do you want me to include? Nick Mks 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
For example, one is called "Current Moon Phase" - it's not obvious that clicking there takes you to some commercial site which displays unrelated ads, and links to NASA. Another is called "Assembled Panoramas from the Apollo Missions" and should probably say that they were assembled by Mike Constantine. Another is called "Moon Orbit Simulation" which could mean a simulation of the moon orbiting around earth, to something orbiting around the moon, but is actually an interactive Javascript simulation/game where you throw marbles around a gravity well. It also needs to say who made it. Where possible, a link should say what site it is from, if it is dated material, a date, and if there is a specific person who wrote or owns it, that person's name. You know, attribution. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My bad, I thought you meant the references. I'll take care of those. Nick Mks 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Done, to my best ability. Nick Mks 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Good enough, I'll tweak a bit myself. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'll have another look at them too. They are right that I missed some. Nick Mks 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Great article Nick, thank you for the work.
The diameter of the moon is described as one quarter of earth in one place towards the end and as one third in second paragraph.
Is the height of the moon in the sky at highest in winter in Northern Hemisphere? see under observations "The highest altitude of the Moon on a day varies and has nearly the same limits as the Sun. It also depends on season and lunar phase with the full moon being highest in winter." If so this is written with assumption reader is not from the Southern Hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrison Roo (talk • contribs)
The diameter ratio is 0.27, so indeed slightly over a quarter. As far as the full moon is higher in winter statement, this is correct for both hemispheres, see talk. Nick Mks 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments: "Legal status" is currently unreferenced; if the section is going to be there at all, it needs a little more context as well ("No nation currently claims ownership..."). And the "Human understanding" section is woefully short; it needs more information about the storied place the moon has played in human mythology beyond a couple of sentences and a link to a poor article (No Artemis? No astrology? And no, I'm not biased because of my name :)) Otherwise, a great article. The "general references" are especially nice. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll be expanding those things a bit, but don't expect too much. I'm not an astrologer or historian. Feel free to add stuff you deem appropriate. Nick Mks 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I didn't get to do much about human understanding than add a link to Artemis. I'm actually happy with the section as a summary of the subject. I agree that there should be a link to a relevant main article in stead of the stubs it links to now, but creating that is not our task here. Nick Mks 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support—Nice. Tony 22:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly on presentation issues
  • Thumb images so that they take on the default resolution specified by the user preferences
All images (except in the infobox) are already thumbed? Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I mean setting a pixel value. WP:MoS =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I've already done so in the meantime then, per another comment that was more specific. Nick Mks 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The nearside and far side needs to be presented as a gallery for (a) comparison and (b) prevention of the squeezing of text between the infobox
I could do that, but I'm not sure whether it is procedure for an inline picture. There is no text between pictures in any of my browsrers by the way. Any views on this anyone? Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not standard procedure. This is done because 1. the user is asked to compare two images, and 2. squashing of text between images and infobox. See Flag of Portugal for gallery images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This has apparently been done as well by a good Samaritan. Nick Mks 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Left-aligned images at the beginning of a section make the text harder to read. Please right-align
Same remark. I've seen loads of FAs with left algined pics. Comments? Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against left-aligned images per se, but those at the start of a section, and those that push the section heading to the right. See WP:MoS =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Will do. Nick Mks 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Earth-Moon2.jpg -- the width specified is too high. It should be less than 600 px to prevent a scrollbar from appearing at standard resolution (800x600)
Done, while I believe standard resolution nowadays is 1024x768. Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No, 800x600 is still standard. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll do so, but I don't see why or per what this is resuired. Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question see: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. Reason It contains information that could be stored more efficiently and/or more accurately in the SVG format. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
My request has been carried out in the meantime. It even got colors. Nick Mks 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • =Exploration= & ==Human understanding= has too many images. Remove, or find another appropriate section.
I've removed one, I think that's enough, if anyone would want more let me know. Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See also should come at the end of the section
Done. Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me know once done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made the image changes. Just convert the gif file to png, and I'll be happy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Has been requested. Nick Mks 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note on intro: I dislike that the entire first paragraph is tied up with etymology. Shuffle this to the end of the intro or, if it's long enough, give it a small section. Marskell 08:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Taking care of it. Nick Mks 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment I didn't read past the TOC, since it starts off with two WP:MSH exceptions ("The"). Pls review the entire article for WP:MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops. Now that I've looked at the bottom of the article, Oppose for now. Incomplete blue-link references, no publishers, dates of last access, etcetera. We need to know what your sources are and whether they are reliable. You can see WP:CITE/ES for examples of how to format references, or use the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC) More: WP:DASH corrections are needed throughout to sort out the difference between hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes. En dashes (which are used for date and number ranges) are used as hyphens; there may be other differences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the external links are still under construction, see above. Could you however elaborate on what the specific dash problems are? I already tried to conform it with WP:DASH, and I was convinced I had succeeded... Nick Mks 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Done with the refs, to my best ability. Nick Mks 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mention External links; it's the footnotes that are incomplete. You've used en dashes in several places that should be hyphens. Why does Earth–Mooon have an en-dash, for example? I made two sample edits for you. I guess some people have a hard time seeing the difference between a - and a – but it's clear to me. If you can get everything else in order (footnotes, for example), I'll find time to fix the dashes for you. External links may need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll have another go at the refs then... I however contest the need for a last access date. Isn't that meant to mark the last date that the link was still existent and accurate? Shouldn't it be absolutely necessary in an FA to be so at all times, and therefore the last access date should be updated daily? As far as the dashes are concerned, I couldn't be more confused. I wrote Earth–Mooon due to the analogy with New York–London flight, mentioned in WP:DASH. The same for 5,000–year-old as inspired by the rule for compund adjectives. Could you mention the external links you find inappropriate? Nick Mks 10:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm so sorry on the en-dash; you are correct (can be used in place of the word "to" for indicating ranges). Shall I re-review and correct or will you? No, last access date indicates the date that you last verified the information cited; it helps us locate it in the internet archive if the site ever goes down. External links, I'd prefer that the editor who knows the topic best (you :-) reviews them per WP:EL, WP:NOT. Full dates (month-day-year) should be wikilinked so that reader's date preferences work; I saw several that aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem about the dashes, I don't claim to have them all right, I did what I could (I didn't know the rules before either). As for the last access date, that's exactly what I mean. In a FA, if a site goes down it should immediately be replaced with another one. What should I do then? Add today's date to all refs? I'll have a look at the external links, but I'm not really an expert (I'm just an astrophysicist, big difference between the Moon and a star ;) ). I'll take care of the unwikified dates. Thanks for the help. Nick Mks 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The section 'Origin and geologic evolution' has a main article called 'geology of the moon' - that's kind of confusing - which is it geology or evolution - or geology and evolution? A main article should cover all the topic. sbandrews (t) 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it was already mentioned as a main article anyway. Nick Mks 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
ah, yes so I see - now I was hoping to avoid having to say this, but it's unavoidable - the *content* of the article is great, the structure is terrible! How was it possible for geology of the moon to be the main article for two different sections? Realy it needs restrucuring. sbandrews (t) 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
For example, the regolith and lunar rocks section clearly belong together, and yet they are half an article apart sbandrews (t) 12:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
While the article is not mine, I do not totally agree. However, I'm open to any proposal concerning a new TOC. Nick Mks 13:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't agree? You now have 'geology of the moon' as the main article for the lunar surface section, which is a mix of geology and geography, while the 'geology of the moon' article contains details about lunar rocks and origin which are handled later in the article... regards sbandrews (t) 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see any other way to do it. The alternative is to concentrate the three first chapters under the heading Geology, and in that case we are reproducing the other article. I don't see what's wrong with referring to one main article more than once actually, but if you don't want that, you're gonna have to live with the fact that not every subject which also appears in the other article has a link. What do the others think about all this? Nick Mks 13:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the alternative. Maybe it's not that bad, I could live with it if you think it's better. Nick Mks 13:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support pending extension of the list of citations. More than 63 needed for an article of that length.ĐộclậpTudoHạnhphúc 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support Support. Random stuff:
  • Don't specify image sizes. They'll resize per user preferences.
  • In contrast to the Earth, no major lunar mountains are believed to have formed as a result of tectonic events - Needs reference.
I'll work on that later. Nick Mks 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Many online references lack the date they where accessed. This is especially important for the readers as online information can change and some may need to verify it using archival websites. If you're unsure when they have been accessed, just check the information again and write today as the access date.
  • Image captions containing full sentences require periods.
  • Remove "The Moon Society" from the external links per WP:EL. Neither informative nor reliable.
  • Avoid linking sole year per WP:DATE (2012). Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure about this one. Above I was asked to link more dates and on WP:DATE I read there is no consensus on what to do. It will have to be consistent though. Nick Mks 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Uncommented remarks taken care of. Nick Mks 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think I've taken care of everything again, except for the possible restructuring which is on hold awaiting more opinions. Nick Mks 18:04, 10 April 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.