Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Supernova

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Contents

[edit] Supernova

This important topic is on the Wikipedia vital articles page under the astronomy category. It is at GA status and has undergone a PR. It was also January's Science CotW. I believe it meets the FA criteria (although the page could easily be considerably longer, depending on the level of detail), so I'm nominating this page as a FAC. I'll try to address the issues that come up, but please be specific about the problems. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent, thorough, well-written. Good job. Mangojuicetalk 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good, but are all those external links necessary? W3stfa11/Talk to me 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps not, but it is difficult to decide which to cull. They all seem valid and of interest for additional reading. Any suggestions? I whittled down the list by merging some as references and moving a few to other pages, where appropriate. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it's confusing that the phrase the most distant Type Ia supernovae before explaining what "Type Ia" actually means. Perhaps wikilink the term to further down the page. And all but a couple of the wikilinks in "See also" are elsewhere in the article, so perhaps the section oculd be integrated and removed. Further readings should be below notes and references, per MoS. Some of the refs need accessdates. Looks pretty good in general. Trebor 10:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up the "See also" section redundant links, relocated "Further readings" and added in the access dates to all but one of the URL'd references. (I couldn't access one of the sites— it may be down temporarily so I'll check again later.) Thanks for the corrections. — RJH (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Comprehensive article. It is also well-written and cited. ← ANAS Talk? 11:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object on the grounds that, whilst it is well researched and well cited, it does not do a good job of explaining itself to the average reader. From the intro: "produces an extremely luminous object made of plasma. A supernova may briefly out-shine its entire host galaxy before fading from view over several weeks or months. It would take 10 billion years for the Sun to produce the energy output of an ordinary, Type II supernova.[1] The explosion expels much or all of a star's material with great force,[2] driving a shock wave into the surrounding space, forming a supernova remnant" What is plasma? What is a type two supernova? What is a supernova remnant? Can these things not be summaried in-line rather than having to switch to another article to find out before you've even got going? For most readers, the name plasma is less important than what plasma is. I would love to read an article on supernovas, but I am not a scientist and time and again whenr eading this article I was stumped by what wsa being presented. I think it is dying for greater in-line explanation of concepts to non-scientists, I feel it is enough to confuse and put-off non-scientists at resent - PocklingtonDan 14:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing objection - most of this has now been addressed, article is now a lot moer accessible for non-specialists - PocklingtonDan 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Per your comment and the above comment from Trebor, I've removed the mentions of supernova type from before the section that talks about type. That early in the article, such information is a bit too detailed. However, I disagree with you about "plasma" -- the term should be well known to those with a reasonable interest in astronomy, and if it's not, there's still a wikilink to the article Plasma (physics), which explains it. A better case could be made for the term "redshift", but there we see the peril -- it would be a mistake to digress into what redshift is, because it's not particularly crucial to the topic of supernovas, and there's another article for that. As for supernova remnant, that sentence basically defines the term, and I've revised it so that it's more clear that that's a definition. Mangojuicetalk 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm having difficulty relating this objection to the featured article criteria. Nowhere does it state the level of reader comprehension to be satisfied. (Compare, for example, to photon which is a far more technical article.) I agree with the removal of the "Type II". I'll try to add some clarification to the first paragraph, but in doing so it may become too wordy. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I quite disagree, "brilliant and compelling prose" assumes that the article is accessible to non-experts. Someone could write a truly comprehensive, sourced, well-structured article about charm quarks or spliceosomes, but without at least an attempt to introduce the reader to the overarching subject or the terms of art, I don't think I could support such an article as an FA. This article is not so badly-off, but this is a totally valid criticism.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • So at what level of education should an article be written for the prose to be considered brilliant and compelling? Why do we have the simple english version? — RJH (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Simple English is intended for people who don't have a complete grasp of the language, not the subject matter. Look at Klein-Gordon equation. Would it be so difficult to include brief explanations of "relativistic," "spinless particles", and a quick overview of the Schrodinger equation? And that's just the lead! The ideal wikipedia article encourages people to look at wikilinks for more detail, it doesn't force them to do so just to get a basic grasp of the original article. We are not talking about "level of education" in a broad sense, meaning that a reader should be able to understand context clues and look up unfamiliar words; sometimes, articles are so field-specific that only someone with a great deal of training in the subject can really understand. Perhaps in advanced topics in quantum mechanics, this is just par for the course, but if an article is up for FA, there has to be a concession to readability. But again, I don't think this article is nearly as bad as all that.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Okay. Are there more specific examples that need some clarification? — RJH (talk)
        • Can I add, tangentially, that we shouldn't rely entirely on wikilinks to provide context in articles? A Wikipedia article in principle is written for the world, not for this website. Also, to the extent that context has to be derived from wikilinks, the educational value of an article falls off sharply. With technical articles, one can get into an endlessly recursive wikilink-following mess. (I am not referring to Supernova, which I haven't looked at yet.) –Outriggr § 02:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The problem then becomes how much should a relatively technical article be written as a stand alone piece? Does it start to snow-ball so that every technical term needs to be explained in detail, pushing up the article length tremendously? By ignoring the wikilink capability in that manner we lose one of the big advantages of even having a wiki. I think you have to assume a certain level of education for an article, then provide wikilinks for those who haven't reached that point yet. But where that level is I have no idea. Just what is average? Anyway that's just my opinion, of course. :-) — RJH (talk)
  • Support M&NCenarius 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Support- I would have thought mentioning the rarity of supernovas in this galaxy and how many there have been should have gone in the lead. I wonder whether calling it a exploding star rather than stellar explosion is just as accurate. cheers. Cas Liber 18:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, saying "exploding star" or "stellar explosion" is essentially the same. I seems like a matter of taste really; I just prefer the current form. You're right in that the article needs information about general supernova rates in all galaxies... which I just did. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Erm, if they occur every 50 years how come we've only had 5 in 2000 years in the Milky Way - is this a typo?Cas Liber 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No it's not a typo, but good observation. We only see part of the Milky Way due to the obscuring effect of the interstellar medium. So we're just viewing a sample of the total supernova explosions. The rate is derived from the amount of radioactive Aluminum-26 found, which is primarily produced by supernovae.[1] (I added a final section to the History of supernova observation page to describe this.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and important topic. —dima/s-ko/ 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support a well-written and exceptionally well-illustrated article on a complex subject. Regarding the accessibility question above, I didn't have undue difficulty understanding the specifics with the provided wikilinks, and I have no particular knowledge of the subject. Just a couple of very minor suggestions:
    • Since there's only a single note, can this be incorporated into the text, or is it just too specific to flow well?
      • I added the note in lieu of a reference, as it's a mathematical derivation. My feeling is that it's better as a note.
    • The table titled "Supernovae taxonomy" is a little awkward; sort of like "organisms classification" or "teeth brush". Would read better to me as "supernova taxonomy".
      • Okay I switched it back. But don't be surprised to see it changed to the way it was; people always seem to be word-smithing those little details. :-)
    • I'm always in the minority on this, but I like to see the "see also" section with several well-chosen links to key related topics, even if they have been linked in the text before. Not linking anything that appears in the text seems to be expecting everyone who hits the bottom of the article to have read the whole thing. But some people think the WP:MOS also comes in stone tablet form, so just take this as food for thought.
    • The external links section would be more useful organized with basic/introductory material at the top and papers at the bottom. Actually the papers should probably go in further reading; just because they're on the web doesn't require them to go in with the links. Opabinia regalis 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • True. It was organized prior to this FAC; I'll see what I can do. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object Organization needs improvement.

[edit] Observation history and Discovery

    • "Observation history" and "Discovery" are not important enough to take up whole sections.
      • Both are important enough to be included in the article. They were merged at one point, but in the past I've received complaints about sections with only one sub-section. So I put them in separate sections. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Type Ia, Ib, and Ic

    • There is a large amount of info on Type Ia and then Type Ib and Ic are crammed into one subsection. This leaves me wondering why there is nothing to say about the Formation and Light curve of type Ib and Ic supernovae.
      • Type Ib and Ic are less common variants, rather than major supernovae models. The summary includes information on how they are believed to have formed. Details on detecting their light curves seemed excessive at this level, but I wouldn't mind seeing separate articles in the future. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If they are so similar that there is not much to say about them, they don't deserve a separate subsection. You should merge the info in with "Type Ia"; rename it to "Type I" with most of the discussion about what all three have in common and then some notes about how they differ. --Ideogram 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well we disagree again, and I don't believe they should be merged. — RJH (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You really should give a reason. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You do seem to be a person who enjoys argument. Unfortunately I am of the opposite nature. I'm satisfied with the current taxonomic section arrangment. — RJH (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are confident that consensus will support you, of course there is nothing more you have to say. --Ideogram 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypernovae

    • If Hypernovae are still theoretical, why are they placed in the Type II subsection?
      • It's directly related; it's an important topic of research, and it's been in the news. So I think it deserves a brief summary. — RJH (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
None of these are sufficient reasons for including this material. I am advocating that the article have a tight focus on one subject; if we included everything that qualified under your reasons above the article would not be focused. They also don't answer my direct question, which is are Hypernovae really Type II? How do we know? --Ideogram 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And I'm arguing that the top level supernova article should provide a relatively comprehensive overview, with sub-topics better developed on other pages. For more information on Hypernova, I suggest reading (and perhaps even developing) that sub-topic. — RJH (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, I thought that was my position. Can you explain why the description of Hypernovae shouldn't be reduced to one sentence with a link to the other article? --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no criteria stating that a summary should be exactly one sentence. It should be as long as is needed to summarize the subject matter. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't state it should be exactly one sentence. I asked you why the summary needs to be longer than one sentence. --Ideogram 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asymmetry

    • What is the subsection "Asymmetry" doing here? It seems like too much detail, and even if it belongs in the article, certainly not here.
      • To provide an explanation of the kick to the supernova remnants, and because it's been frequently mentioned in recent modeling results (and in Supernova articles). It also helps explain jets. Finally I just found it interesting. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't just include everything that you find interesting. You need to consider that the reader may not be interested in the same things. This is why we have links; they can hint at other related topics and the reader can click on them if they are interested.
This is an encyclopedia, not a newsmagazine. Whether a result is recent or not is completely irrelevant. --Ideogram 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So again we disagree at a philosophical level. I haven't included everything I found interesting; but I do write about what I find interesting, otherwise this would be a pointless exercise. Obviously not all readers are going to be equally interesting in every section. I still firmly believe the topic is sufficiently important and relevant to include. — RJH (talk)
But why was this included and not other equally interesting material? You really have never answered that question. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What other equally interesting material are you suggesting we merge? Asymmetry is directly related to supernova models, and the observables. The need for inclusion seems clear to me. The fact that I also find it an interesting topic hopefully makes it enjoyable to other occasional readers. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I am rejecting the notion that things should be included just because they are "interesting", I am pushing you to include things because they are important. Even if Asymmetry is important, is it important enough to require this much space? --Ideogram 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. — RJH (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Type I vs Type II

    • "Type I versus Type II" probably should go in the introduction to the section.
      • 'IIRC, they were at one point and then were removed to keep the lead section free of excessive detail. I don't think the introduction suffers from their absence, so I left them out. Otherwise another paragraph would probably be needed in explanation. — RJH (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impact on Earth

    • "Impact on Earth" doesn't belong in this article.
      • I disagree. It is directly related to the topic of supernovae, and I find it interesting reading. Ditto for the next issue. — RJH (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We can't put everything in here that is related and interesting. It's not hard to click on a link. --Ideogram 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
        • True, not "everything" can go in here. But these sections make the subject more compelling and the article an interesting read. They relate supernova events to people's lives, the history of the Earth and the whole reason why were here. So I remain strongly opposed to their removal. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be dry and factual. We are not here to make the subject exciting and relate it to people's lives. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Who said it wasn't dry and factual? FA's are supposed to make for compelling reading--I read that as making the topic interesting to the reader. It isn't necessary for the topic to be emotive and arousing for it to be enjoyable. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We aren't writing an article for a popular science magazine. Nobody casually looks up Supernova in an encyclopedia because the article mentions "the whole reason why we are here". They are here because they are already interested in Supernovae and we don't need to make some kind of sales pitch to convince them that Supernovae are related to their lives. --Ideogram 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "Milky Way candidates" doesn't belong in this article. --Ideogram 09:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More discussion

      • Sorry to say this but I really have deep philosophical differences with you on most of these issues. That is I disagree with everything except, possibly, the "Type I versus Type II" remark. (But even there I'm iffy, as it would require an expansion of the lead section in explanation.) If that means this article does not become FA, then, I'm sorry to say, so be it. Thank you for your feedback. — RJH (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There are several questions listed which can be answered without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing. --Ideogram 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the "Impact on Earth" and "Milky Way Candidates" don't belong, and I disagree that "Observation history" and "Discovery" aren't important enough for the coverage they have. Inclusion of those sections is what makes this article so comprehensive, which is one of the Featured article requirements. Mangojuicetalk 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying "Observation history" and "Discovery" should be removed, I'm saying they are too small and minor to be sections by themselves. They could be combined with "Naming convention" in a general introductory section.
There is a tension between comprehensiveness and coherence. You clearly cannot include everything related to supernovae, you have to decide what is important and relevant enough to include. We can disagree on what specifically belongs but a general appeal to comprehensiveness would imply everything belongs. --Ideogram 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. However, those sections are clearly about supernovae, and answer many of the kinds of questions a reader might have: What is the history of supernova discovery? How are supernovae found? What would happen to us if one happened nearby? Could one happen nearby? It seems to me that you must be saying that those parts of the subject aren't important enough to cover, but the extensive citations in those sections in academic venues prove that people are indeed very interested in such areas. I doubt a similar list of quality citations would be found for a really trivial section like "Supernovae in popular culture" or something. So... why do you think these are irrelevant, given that the scientific community seems to disagree? Mangojuicetalk 00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if you limited the article to subjects for which extensive citations could be found, you would still have a bloated, unfocused article. There is nothing wrong with putting that valuable material in separate articles and linking to it. Especially here, where articles have to be short, each article needs to focus on one central aspect of the subject and link to other articles discussing related aspects. In this case, a quick glance at the table of contents reveals that the central aspect of supernovae being discussed is the classification system into Type Ia, Ib, Ic, and II and the behavior and models of those types. --Ideogram 11:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I find the present subject headings suitable to the topic, and not at all "bloated".
I have to agree with the unsigned comment. Some of the subject headings are clearly suitable candidates for spinning off into their own articles for further expansion in detail, but they will still need to be summarized in some detail in the Supernova article. The discovery, naming convention, models, asymmetry, remnants and effects on us are all closely intertwined subject-matter. Type Ib and Ic are just less common variants of the two primary forms: Type Ia and Type II, so I'm not sure how much they could be developed without including masses of additional detail and adding to your "bloat". Hypernovae are the subject of much current research and are very likely closely related to Type II, so that is also quite worthy of inclusion in at least a brief mention. Asymmetry is at the core of how supernovae function, so it should absolutely not be excluded. I also find the sections on supernovae effects and their proximity to the Earth to be relevant and quite interesting to the subject matter. Sorry but I can't just can't see the article size be the overriding factor here. I would much rather see this article fail FA than be chopped into separate pieces as is suggested. — RJH (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RJH, anyone can see here that the unsigned comment was left by you. This little bit of misdirection makes you look very bad. --Ideogram 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my goof. I hadn't had my first cup of coffee. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RJH, you are not answering my questions. These are questions anyone not expert on supernovae is likely to ask. Since I had them while reading the article, you need to clarify the issues I raised in the article.
I ask you to think clearly what your purpose is here. If all you want is the star, your article can probably pass without me. But if you want the article to truly represent the best that Wikipedia has to offer, you should try to work with me.
I have no interest in the star; it's just a vandal magnet and I would much rather not see this article appear on the front page—but that isn't an option for an FA. My primary interest was making this an interesting read that did not suffer from obvious errors. But I do find your hubris a little grating. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I am only stating my opinion. The validity of my objections will have to be determined by consensus among the other editors. --Ideogram 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem unwilling to discuss. If you can address my points and explain your vision of the article, it is possible I will agree with you. Even if I do not, your explanation may help the FA director decide to overrule my objections. --Ideogram 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram -- having looked over things again, I agree with you to a degree. The asymmetry section, as it stands in the article, does seem a bit out of context. I also think that the "observation history" and "discovery" sections should probably just be grouped into a single section called "Observation" or something similar; the distinction between the two seems needless, and there's no need to have two top-level sections be so short when others are so much longer. Similarly with the other sections you are complaining about. Where I suppose we differ is that I feel those sections should be tied in to the rest of the article more clearly, rather than removed. Perhaps the asymmetry section and some of the others could be grouped into a section on current research topics? I do find current research topics interesting and relevant, but the organization should probably not flip-flop between well-established core stuff and new research issues. Mangojuicetalk 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Asymmetry is a core element of modern supernovae models and I don't believe it should be excluded. The article still needs to mention the kick to remnants and provide an explanation of some sort. This is the best we have. The "Discovery" section was separated from "Observation" due to past complaints about having sections with only one sub-section. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RJH, I generally agree with you here that comprehensiveness beats size every time, and the sections Ideogram has identified as excessive or extraneous are, in my view, crucial to comprehensiveness. But on this sub-point, I think that the discovery and observation sections can easily be merged; headers and subheaders are navigational tools, and conforming to the grade-school view of 'what an outline should be' (I remember learning the no-singleton-subsection rule too) is entirely unimportant. Opabinia regalis 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have no issue with a re-merger of the Discovery and Observation sections, as they were only split based on the precedent of this forum. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical differences

It appears we are at an impasse. My position is that the article needs to be focused on one topic and we can include links to other interesting and related topics. My understanding of RJH's position is that we should summarize many (to him) interesting topics, especially recent results. I'm sure RJH will correct me if I have misinterpreted him.

At this point it is up to the other editors, and the FA director, to decide which vision is more appropriate. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right. However a number of the topics about which you've taken askance were contributed by other editors. It was not solely my interest that generated the subject matter. The "Impact on Earth" section was the result of a merge from a separate article. (See Talk:Supernova#Merge_Near-Earth_Supernova_into_Supernova.) Also I believe the sub-topics are at a sufficiently high level not to be relegated as minute details. — RJH (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Saying "Yes" without a supporting reason is rather childish. As I noted already, this dispute is at an impasse and deciding who is right is up to consensus. If you really don't have anything to say, you don't have to say anything. --Ideogram 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose resorting to insults was the next step up the ladder. Your opinion is duly noted. — RJH (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt that was an insult. --Ideogram 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks fine to me. As a former astronomer, I agree with RJH's approach entirely. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't really see what your background as an astronomer has to do with it. I am a writer. --Ideogram 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Knowing a little about the topic (not my specific area of expertise, I hasten to add) I trust his judgement as to when something is important enough, or interesting enough, to be included in an overview article like this, and how much weight should be given to each element. I venture to add that further discussion of my background, or reasons for supporting, are rather tangential to this discussion - which is about whether this article should be featured or not. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You brought it up. As a writer my expertise is in structuring and presenting the knowledge other people possess. He may know the what but I wish to advise on the how. I am quite aware that he is familiar with the subject matter and I am not, which is why most of the time I am asking questions about what is really important and what is not. His response is to reject the notion of importance as a criterion, in favor of what is "interesting". I have reasons for my opinions but he doesn't want to discuss them. --Ideogram 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
          • You don't seem to be listening to his answers - the things that he thinks are interesting are also important. Anyway, enough of this meta-discussion. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't noticed much explanation. Generally his answers are no more than "Yes it's important" with the implication that I am to take his word for it. He seems to personally dislike me for challenging him. Note the comment above about "hubris". --Ideogram 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I don't see a problem with the current structure of the article. To respond to Ideogram's queries -- sections like "discovery," "observational history," and "impact on Earth" seem to have transparent importance. The nature of the sources used satisfy any further concerns about the importance of the material in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note again that I am not suggesting "discovery" and "observational history" be removed. I am suggesting that they be merged with other sections since they are so short. Also, just because you can find sources for certain material doesn't mean it's important to the article. You can slap together a well sourced article that contains all kinds of important science that is still poorly organized and poorly focused. --Ideogram 15:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Can you please try to make all your points in one edit that I can respond to? You are making multiple edits while I am composing my response which forces me to waste time dealing with edit conflicts. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of how I ended up with my goofy unsigned comment--trying to respond while the page kept getting updated and ending up with edit locks. I can usually get in briefer replies without this issue arising. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 8 February 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.