Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sun/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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:41, 30 July 2009 [1].

Sun edit

Review commentary edit

Notifications: Ckatz, WikiProject Space WikiProject Solar System

Fails the criteria 1c. Lots of unverified statements. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two requests: 1) Can you be more specific on what exactly needs to be verified (statistics, sections, paragraphs, etc.) and 2) Please list the notifications you made at the top. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kung Fu Hustle as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of "citation needed" notes. Also e.g. in the 1st part of "Core" section there are a lot of statements and only one reference. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!--Stone (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing by saying that some paras only have one citation, he is also objecting to those with no citation YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently three "citation needed" tags. One is apparently for a number and one is about the Genesis spacecraft - those could be provided easily. Much of the article is basic info that could be verified (and corrected if necessary) from many sources, including most common encyclopedias. This seems like a fairly superficial issue. Is there anything more substantive that would prevent this article from remaining FA? Gimmetrow 00:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sunspots and the sunspot cycle" section has lots of controversial for non-experts statements and has only one inline citation. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 10:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also spotted contradiction with list of nearest stars about absolute magnitude. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 19:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SkyBon, not to suggest that we shouldn't be accurate, but there is also a case of taking things too far, too quickly. For example, putting a prominent "contradiction" template at the top of a featured article because of a difference of 0.02 in the absolute magnitude data was not appropriate. Yes, we'll address the issues - but it would help if you could provide greater detail about what concerns you (for example, the "controversial" sunspot note above) rather than applying templates, removing "featured" stars, and so on. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun article gives absolute magnitude 4.83 (same as [2]), and the List article uses 4.85. That's a variation in the sources. (And 0.5%, at that.) Unless you can rule out one source as "mistaken", what would you like done about it? Gimmetrow 03:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be ignored. The Sun's brightness is not fixed and I think complaining about the hundredths column is a little excessive. 4.85 could easily be a rounded figure for 4.83. -- Kheider (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to comment, was reading and saw the request for additional comments and I couldn't help but notice that the article only alludes to the fact that the Sun has planets around it, while this is probably common knowledge to most I would bet there are a fair amount of people that wouldn't realize the total number of planets, or their names as well as the large amount of recent discoveries in the Kuiper Belt. I don't think it needs a large section but most star articles I have seen on wiki at least mention the number of planets orbiting. Thanks and I hope this is the appropriate venue to address such a concern.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be an issue of article scope. Most star articles also cover their orbital system. Here, that content is covered by the article on the Solar System, which has an overview of the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt, and which is linked in the first sentence of this article. Gimmetrow 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I did a complete overhaul of the references. Many had the wrong information, formatting was all over the place, and so on. Several sections and statements still are unreferenced, and the section on eye safety / eye damage seems to use relatively low-quality references, and seems to be thrown together haphazardly compared to the rest of the article. In this current state, it would not pass FA. However, since the dirty job is now done, perhaps directly inviting the astronomy project to add the refs, and directly inviting the medicine project to review the eye damage section would produce editors willing to fix the remaining issues. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question to YellowMonkey: Where is the article NPOV? --Stone (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was a mistake YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone still working on this? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could add ^{[citation needed]} tags where you think they are needed, I will find the sources. Serendi ^pod ous 09:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add more sources in the next few days. Ruslik_Zero 15:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bunch of NASA refs especially for the structure section. Here's my 2 cents: the article is well structured and quite accurate; if every reviewer spends one minute to google the first two instances of unreferenced statements (instead of replying to this review) and picks the out of the first 5 results the one that has NASA on it, and then just pastes the link in the text without any format, then the article will have more than enough refs in no time. The topic is way too basic to go past the first 5 google results to find a high-quality, precise reference. Nergaal (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I referenced many parts of the article. I am planning to finish by the end of the week. Ruslik_Zero 07:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finished adding references. If there are other problems, please, indicate them. Ruslik_Zero 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

If the Solar neutrino problem has been resolved, is it appropriate to have it remain in the problems section?
Please cite the third-to-last sentence in that paragraph.
Please cite the last sentence in the "Sunspots and the sunspot cycle" subsection.
"This revelation stands today as one of the great achievements of science." reads as a bit weasely to me, as does "Hence, the problem is now resolved." Could you please rewrite these sentences?
Please cite the fourth paragraph in "Observation and effects".
Please cite the first paragraph in " Terminology" and the translated names of the Sun.

These are all minor things, but if I were reviewing this to become an FA, I'd say the same things. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved your remaining issues, I think. Serendi ^pod ous 17:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The principal complaint of this FAR was that there were not enough citations. Since this FAR was launched the number of references has increased by 70 percent. If that is not enough, the originator of the FAR needs to make that clear now or close this. Serendi ^pod ous 09:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has been inactive for more than a week. Nergaal (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, changed to Keep, positive improvements to article, since nom. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just noticed this one - I see some problems which are not too hard to fix. The Terminology section lacks the derivation of the word sun (I will get out my OED...). More to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really important? "Sun" comes from the Old High German Sunna, which is derived (probably) from the reconstructed Proto-Germanic Sunnon, which is derived ultimately from the hyopothetical Proto-Indo-European saewel and saewen, two forms of the same word which led to Sol and Sun, respectively. Whether that is particularly illuminating or informative I don't know. Serendi ^pod ous 13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - "illuminating" is a funny word to use :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But more seriously, the Overview section I have a problem with - technically the lead is an overview (summary of important points), therefore having another generic overview as such (if it is actually an overview) is repetitive and redundant. The section itself has a paragrpah of classification, 2 paras on solar energy --> earth, and a paragraph on magnetic field and effects on the earth.

I'd rename the Structure section to Characteristics (like other solar objects)
Para 1 of overview is more about origins really and should be integrated into life cycle and summarised into the lead.
Para 4 of overview is a summary and should be in lead (as a summary of magnetic field section).
Paras 2 and 3 are about its interaction with the earth - and should be renamed - effects on earth or something, which highlights the role the sun and solar energy plays in sustaining life on earth. This also might be the section to link to elsewhere on the topic.

I am happy to work on this, as otherwise the article fails 2 (a). More tomorrow as I need to sleep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reordered it. Serendi ^pod ous 15:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My concerns and comments have been addressed, and I believe the article meets the minimum FA requirements. Any improvements would further cement the claim to FA status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a FA. --Stone (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we're there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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