Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kreutz Sungrazers/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 15:04, 19 November 2008 [1].

Kreutz Sungrazers edit

Messages left at Serendipodous, Marskell, Ruslik0 (Worldtraveller is long retired), WP Solar System

This article definitely wouldn't pass FAC at this point, or GAN for that matter. I see massive issues with 1C, some minor 1A issues, and 2C. —Ceran^(Sing) 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has hardly changed at all in the 2+ years since the primary author lasted edited it. Shame. I have no reason to doubt the info, but I don't know if anyone will step forward for an astro article so relatively obscure. Marskell (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily take a stab at solving 1A and 2C, but can you be more precise about your concerns with regards to referencing (1C). Do you think the article is factually incorrect, or just lacking in sufficient references? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel the article is inaccurate because I trust the original nominator's work. But of course that's not sufficient for FA standard. This needs inline referencing. For example: "To an observer on the comet, the Sun would subtend an angle of over 80° in the sky; it would appear 27,000 times larger and brighter than when viewed from Earth, and would deliver 37 megawatts of heat to each square meter of the comet's surface." Hard data of this sort needs citations. I don't want to clutter this with flags, but I'll place some if you find it useful. Marskell (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to MGM - I just think that obviously the referencing, but the sources there are fine. —Ceran^(Sing) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next week I will try to add inline citations to this article. Ruslik (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik finished the first round of references. I need about a week to make sure I've done a proper copyedit. Can the end of this FAR be extended accordingly? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Marskell (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've emailed Worldtraveller asking for some clarification on the article, so I'm positive my edits won't introduce errors by changing the meaning of the sentences. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can also ask me. Ruslik (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images I think Image:Two Kreutz Sungrazers imaged by SOHO.jpg and Image:SOHO sungrazer with prominent tail.jpg need different licences, but I'm not sure what. They're not NASA images; they're SOHO images which is a consortium of European and American agencies. I do not believe that they are public domain, but it is permissable (indeed "encouraged") to use them for educational, non-commercial use [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the licences [3][4] DrKiernan (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worldtraveller responded to my email with some clarifications, I'll be editing the article this weekend (European time) and he said he might drop by too. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the last note that I wanted to add. So the only problem is minor (in my opinion) copy-edit. Ruslik (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done everyone. I think we can keep this now. Marskell (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.