![]() | Controversy over the discovery of Haumea has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
note: add images of the two claimants. Nergaal ( talk) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I am tempted to submit this to GA. anybody? Nergaal ( talk) 10:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is heavily slanted towards the Caltech team, including even having only a picture of the team leader for Caltech but not the Spanish team. This is a pretty nasty violation of NPOV.-- Cerejota ( talk) 08:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This is simply a statement of fact. Its either true that he suspects fraud or it is not. To suggest that we must say that "he says he suspects" is absurd. Why should we doubt him. If he SAYS he suspects fraud,then its reasonable to say that he suspects fraud,if he suspects fraud,then I presume he has said so,otherwise its unlikely we would know. (or at least,we unless he stated it would would be simply guessing)
Actually,accuses is NOT a weaker statement,its far stronger. In normal English usage,"I suspect you of X" ,means I have some level of information that I find sufficient to think X. But if I say,"I accuse you of X" its a very strong statement. It means,"Im saying you did X" The implication is,your not uncertain,you firmly believe it.
I DO see a problem with the article. I see no reference for the claim that he suspects fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1905:210B:0:0:0:464 ( talk) 22:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Was this article written by someone on the Caltech team? It's written like a short story where the Caltech team is the protagonist and the Spanish team the villain. I'm tagging this with POV, it really should be looked at by someone neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.208.74 ( talk) 08:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The Spanish obviously discovered it but the Americans have to take credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.39.132 ( talk) 18:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
On verifying the sources, I realized that the "Discovery" section has serious factual errors. For example, it adjudicates discovery to one team, while this is precisely the fact on controversy. It should be rewritten to give parity in their claims to both teams, as this is what the sources actually say.
Of course, the "Synthesis" issues around the actions of the Spanish team still remain, and these affect the entire article.-- Cerejota ( talk) 09:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If this was simply a matter of discovery credit, then yes, I think your proposal would be a good idea. But the problem is that the Spanish team could very well be guilty of fraud, a serious crime. To give parity to both sides would be to give credence to a potential fraud. Serendi pod ous 11:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact tag should go in the Haumea article, not here, since that article depends on this for its conclusion. (I'm going by your edit summary, where you say you're tagging this article because it disagrees with the main article.) kwami ( talk) 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This guy hasn't posted in three days. Since he has yet to explain how this article could be made more balanced, can we call the issue closed? Serendi pod ous 15:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is a quick fail. It has dispute tags on it, POV tags, and its accuracy is being questioned. There is an argument underway on the article's talk page.
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
Article is a quick fail because of current edit wars over NPOV. — Mattisse ( Talk) 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a good piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
Comments in no particular order:
The citing is really the biggest issue. "... Brown came to suspect fraud." isn't cited, and it and most of what's in the "Reaction" section needs to be. "IAU protocol is that ..." isn't cited. "... accusing the IAU of political bias." isn't cited. And so on. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Is anything happening to resolve the issues raised in this review? There were a couple of edits by the nominator in this direction on March 1, but nothing else. It's already been longer than the specified 7 days since the review was done for changes to be made. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There has been no further activity on this article, so I'm failing the GA. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to do a full GA review just yet, but I will say that the article seems to end a bit abruptly...the aftermath and/or resolution of this controversy should maybe have its own section? Otherwise this article seems very good, haven't examined the POV details yet though. - RunningOnBrains( talk) 15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In what specific way is the link deficient in necessary and relevant information. Or should we simply add links for the sake of having them. Should we add references just for references sake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1905:210B:0:0:0:464 ( talk) 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
No issues noted; the article has a history of edit wars but these seem to have been resolved. The page has been relatively uncontroversial for the past several months
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll review this article within the next few days. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is certainly much better in terms of neutrality than it was. Anyway, here are the issues I found:
That's the only issue I have, so I'll put the article on hold. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:2003 EL61.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
I've tagged the article, as it has a serious POV problem. All the Caltech stuff is presented as facts, while the Spanish stuff is full of weasel words, "claims to have examined", "He says that he found" etc etc. Some serious agenda pushing going on here. 131.251.254.154 ( talk) 09:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Controversy over the discovery of Haumea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The article claims that the chthonic name was inappropriate because Haumea wasn't resonant with Neptune -- however, this source, as well as the article itself (The nominal trajectory suggests that Haumea is in a weak 7:12 orbital resonance with Neptune, which would make it a resonant object instead.[3]), indicates that that has been disproven. The section should be revised to clarify that it was thought at the time to be inappropriate. 38.134.125.11 ( talk) 16:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Controversy over the discovery of Haumea has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
note: add images of the two claimants. Nergaal ( talk) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I am tempted to submit this to GA. anybody? Nergaal ( talk) 10:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is heavily slanted towards the Caltech team, including even having only a picture of the team leader for Caltech but not the Spanish team. This is a pretty nasty violation of NPOV.-- Cerejota ( talk) 08:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This is simply a statement of fact. Its either true that he suspects fraud or it is not. To suggest that we must say that "he says he suspects" is absurd. Why should we doubt him. If he SAYS he suspects fraud,then its reasonable to say that he suspects fraud,if he suspects fraud,then I presume he has said so,otherwise its unlikely we would know. (or at least,we unless he stated it would would be simply guessing)
Actually,accuses is NOT a weaker statement,its far stronger. In normal English usage,"I suspect you of X" ,means I have some level of information that I find sufficient to think X. But if I say,"I accuse you of X" its a very strong statement. It means,"Im saying you did X" The implication is,your not uncertain,you firmly believe it.
I DO see a problem with the article. I see no reference for the claim that he suspects fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1905:210B:0:0:0:464 ( talk) 22:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Was this article written by someone on the Caltech team? It's written like a short story where the Caltech team is the protagonist and the Spanish team the villain. I'm tagging this with POV, it really should be looked at by someone neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.208.74 ( talk) 08:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The Spanish obviously discovered it but the Americans have to take credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.39.132 ( talk) 18:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
On verifying the sources, I realized that the "Discovery" section has serious factual errors. For example, it adjudicates discovery to one team, while this is precisely the fact on controversy. It should be rewritten to give parity in their claims to both teams, as this is what the sources actually say.
Of course, the "Synthesis" issues around the actions of the Spanish team still remain, and these affect the entire article.-- Cerejota ( talk) 09:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If this was simply a matter of discovery credit, then yes, I think your proposal would be a good idea. But the problem is that the Spanish team could very well be guilty of fraud, a serious crime. To give parity to both sides would be to give credence to a potential fraud. Serendi pod ous 11:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact tag should go in the Haumea article, not here, since that article depends on this for its conclusion. (I'm going by your edit summary, where you say you're tagging this article because it disagrees with the main article.) kwami ( talk) 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This guy hasn't posted in three days. Since he has yet to explain how this article could be made more balanced, can we call the issue closed? Serendi pod ous 15:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is a quick fail. It has dispute tags on it, POV tags, and its accuracy is being questioned. There is an argument underway on the article's talk page.
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
Article is a quick fail because of current edit wars over NPOV. — Mattisse ( Talk) 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a good piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
Comments in no particular order:
The citing is really the biggest issue. "... Brown came to suspect fraud." isn't cited, and it and most of what's in the "Reaction" section needs to be. "IAU protocol is that ..." isn't cited. "... accusing the IAU of political bias." isn't cited. And so on. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Is anything happening to resolve the issues raised in this review? There were a couple of edits by the nominator in this direction on March 1, but nothing else. It's already been longer than the specified 7 days since the review was done for changes to be made. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There has been no further activity on this article, so I'm failing the GA. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to do a full GA review just yet, but I will say that the article seems to end a bit abruptly...the aftermath and/or resolution of this controversy should maybe have its own section? Otherwise this article seems very good, haven't examined the POV details yet though. - RunningOnBrains( talk) 15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In what specific way is the link deficient in necessary and relevant information. Or should we simply add links for the sake of having them. Should we add references just for references sake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1905:210B:0:0:0:464 ( talk) 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
No issues noted; the article has a history of edit wars but these seem to have been resolved. The page has been relatively uncontroversial for the past several months
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll review this article within the next few days. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is certainly much better in terms of neutrality than it was. Anyway, here are the issues I found:
That's the only issue I have, so I'll put the article on hold. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:2003 EL61.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
I've tagged the article, as it has a serious POV problem. All the Caltech stuff is presented as facts, while the Spanish stuff is full of weasel words, "claims to have examined", "He says that he found" etc etc. Some serious agenda pushing going on here. 131.251.254.154 ( talk) 09:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Controversy over the discovery of Haumea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The article claims that the chthonic name was inappropriate because Haumea wasn't resonant with Neptune -- however, this source, as well as the article itself (The nominal trajectory suggests that Haumea is in a weak 7:12 orbital resonance with Neptune, which would make it a resonant object instead.[3]), indicates that that has been disproven. The section should be revised to clarify that it was thought at the time to be inappropriate. 38.134.125.11 ( talk) 16:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)