Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of solar eclipses in the 21st century
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [1].
List of solar eclipses in the 21st century edit
This is a comprehensive list containing all 224 eclipses predicted to happen this century. Predictions come from a well-known expert in the employ of NASA, and are precise and definite enough that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. The list is rather large at 95KB; I think that it's best as one list rather than multiple, but comments on this are welcome. (should it be split by decade? 50 year period?) I think that the column order is logical, but again comments on this are welcome. Finally, I'm aware that the areas might be overlinked, but I think it's justified here as the list is pretty random-access: the line of interest will always be the next eclipse, and users will probably want to click on links in that line (although perhaps the common ones like North America, Asia, Africa etc. don't need to be linked?). Also, the list is sortable, so there are multiple "tops of the list". Thanks for looking. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- First off, good to see you at FLC Mike!
- Avoid starting the lead with "This is a list of solar eclipses in the 21st century" - more imagination required these days. Featured articles don't start with "This is an article about.." so avoid it here too.
- "During the period 2001 to 2100 there" - you need to remember you're talking to everyone, so say something like "Between 2001 AD and 2100 AD..."
- "2 of which will be off centre" - two of which will be off-centre? And what does "off-centre" mean?
- Explain (or link) totality, GSFC (before you abbreviate), hybrid eclipse...
- Convert the path width to imperial for us old-fashioned types.
- [2] is used everywhere - make it a general reference.
- "Central Duration" - duration.
- What's "greatest eclipse"? and "path width"?
- Perhaps need to explain that a partial eclipse doesn't have a path width for non-experts?
- " magnitude of the eclipse (the fraction of the sun's diameter obscured by the moon)" - how can this exceed unity?
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking your comments in turn:
- Thanks!
- How's that?
- Ditto
- I've tried to explain this; does it make sense?
- I've linked to Solar_eclipse#Types; is that sufficient?
- Will do, but it will take a short while... Now done. Mike Peel (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm never sure about general references; I prefer to indicate where they are used, even if that is everywhere. Otherwise it makes it more tricky to work out which bits of an article aren't actually referenced.
- If I get your meaning right, then this is fixed
- Hopefully explained
- Actually, I think it does. But it's sufficiently large (and hence common) that it's not normally given.
- If the apparent size of the moon is larger than the sun. It's possibly more of a mathematical concept, but it will affect the duration (and area viewable from) of the maximum eclipse.
- Thanks for your comments. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a nice-looking list, logically constructed, and well-described. I have checked only a couple of the sources, but am trusting the check reported earlier. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 12 September 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.