I've been working on this recently hoping to bring it up to FA standards, and with the help of the featured German version's ToC which highlighted some gaps in our coverage, I think it might be there now. I think it's now comprehensive and accessible so I'll give it a run here and see what anyone else thinks.
Worldtraveller17:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support A nice article! The only minor thing I should suggest is to convert external links within the article into references.
Cmapm17:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Nice article, the only thing I think could be improved is the main picture. A color version in which tiles are not so evident would be better. Great job. --
Enano27521:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Trouble is, the only close up images are from Mariner 10, and they all tend to look a bit like that. True colour ones don't exist, but there are some false colour composites - I'll see if I can find one.
Worldtraveller21:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: Does justice to a fascinating topic. You might want to clean up your in-line citations though. Per
WP:FOOTNOTE, they should be of the form sentence.[1]...some of your in-line citations look like such sentence [1].AreJay01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment. Personally I've always found it really bizarre when people put refs after a full stop - seems to me very strange to have a citation for something in a different sentence. Is it a US/UK difference? I notice that the line addressing this was only very recently added to
WP:FOOTNOTE.
Worldtraveller01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't know if it is...I typically use
MLA Style and the MLA format for in-line citations is structured in much the same way as yours currently are. I don't think this is a problem, I just feel that we should standardize our formatting in the article since I've seen instances of the sentence.[1] format as well as the sentence [1]. format. Should be fairly easy. I can't realistically hold you to
WP:FOOTNOTE anyway since it isn't Wikipedia MOS policy.
AreJay03:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Quite comprehensive, writing is fine. Compares very favourably to the
Venus FA. I'm personally indifferent, but I can imagine someone coming along and expecting an In Popular Culture section.
Marskell08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I've just done some cleanup edits that should have been done before the article was even nominated, but there are things I can't fix on my own. For example: there are no sources cited at all in the Early astronomers section, and the only reference in the Ground-based telescopic research section refers to events in the year 2000. The statements about the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hebrew names need to be sourced. Ditto the claims about the Greek astronomers who figured out that "Apollo" and "Hermes" were the same body. Also, the section implies that the terms
Morning Star and
Evening Star referred to Mercury, while the disambig pages themselves indicate the terms referred to Venus.
Angr (
talk •
contribs)
09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks - I'll address those points later today. I saw you just changed all the citations from being before punctuation to after it - I have to say that positioning seems very illogical, and I'd only just last night made sure they were all before the punctutation, so I've started a discussion on
Wikipedia talk:Footnotes about this which you might want to weigh in on.
Worldtraveller09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I've always seen footnotes to the right of periods and commas in published work, both British and American. It's a matter of style, not logic. Another problem I have is with the sentence Mercury's smaller orbit means it is not much farther away, and the fuller phase more than outweighs its greater distance from Earth, which I can't understand at all. The context suggests that this sentence is supposed to be explaining why Mercury is brighter in its gibbous phase than in its full phase, but I don't see that it achieves that goal. I can't make any sense of it at all, not least because of all the comparative forms (smaller, farther, fuller, greater) that don't explain what's being compared (smaller/farther/fuller/greater than what?).
Angr (
talk •
contribs)
10:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I added references throughout the historical studies sections, and rewrote the part explaining why Mercury is brighter when further away - is it clearer now? Any further parts needing work? Thanks for your comments.
Worldtraveller10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: A place less hospitable than the US South! Very good article, very comprehensive, and very readable, given the scientific writing necessary for it. The Spacers do good work in general, and now PlanetaryTraveller has a good submission on the sun's meteor shield, from hornéd helmet to I. Ron Core. Formatting issues are formatting; they are after the content, and, while those with an interest in consistency can ask for consistency, they're surely not substantive objections.
Geogre14:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, excellent article. One little thing that I saw, though, was that the referencing format is not consistent. In parts, it uses a bare link after the formatted reference, and in others, it uses descriptive text as part of the link. It's something so trivial it doesn't merit opposing, though.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)reply
I've been working on this recently hoping to bring it up to FA standards, and with the help of the featured German version's ToC which highlighted some gaps in our coverage, I think it might be there now. I think it's now comprehensive and accessible so I'll give it a run here and see what anyone else thinks.
Worldtraveller17:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support A nice article! The only minor thing I should suggest is to convert external links within the article into references.
Cmapm17:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Nice article, the only thing I think could be improved is the main picture. A color version in which tiles are not so evident would be better. Great job. --
Enano27521:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Trouble is, the only close up images are from Mariner 10, and they all tend to look a bit like that. True colour ones don't exist, but there are some false colour composites - I'll see if I can find one.
Worldtraveller21:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: Does justice to a fascinating topic. You might want to clean up your in-line citations though. Per
WP:FOOTNOTE, they should be of the form sentence.[1]...some of your in-line citations look like such sentence [1].AreJay01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment. Personally I've always found it really bizarre when people put refs after a full stop - seems to me very strange to have a citation for something in a different sentence. Is it a US/UK difference? I notice that the line addressing this was only very recently added to
WP:FOOTNOTE.
Worldtraveller01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't know if it is...I typically use
MLA Style and the MLA format for in-line citations is structured in much the same way as yours currently are. I don't think this is a problem, I just feel that we should standardize our formatting in the article since I've seen instances of the sentence.[1] format as well as the sentence [1]. format. Should be fairly easy. I can't realistically hold you to
WP:FOOTNOTE anyway since it isn't Wikipedia MOS policy.
AreJay03:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Quite comprehensive, writing is fine. Compares very favourably to the
Venus FA. I'm personally indifferent, but I can imagine someone coming along and expecting an In Popular Culture section.
Marskell08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I've just done some cleanup edits that should have been done before the article was even nominated, but there are things I can't fix on my own. For example: there are no sources cited at all in the Early astronomers section, and the only reference in the Ground-based telescopic research section refers to events in the year 2000. The statements about the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hebrew names need to be sourced. Ditto the claims about the Greek astronomers who figured out that "Apollo" and "Hermes" were the same body. Also, the section implies that the terms
Morning Star and
Evening Star referred to Mercury, while the disambig pages themselves indicate the terms referred to Venus.
Angr (
talk •
contribs)
09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks - I'll address those points later today. I saw you just changed all the citations from being before punctuation to after it - I have to say that positioning seems very illogical, and I'd only just last night made sure they were all before the punctutation, so I've started a discussion on
Wikipedia talk:Footnotes about this which you might want to weigh in on.
Worldtraveller09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I've always seen footnotes to the right of periods and commas in published work, both British and American. It's a matter of style, not logic. Another problem I have is with the sentence Mercury's smaller orbit means it is not much farther away, and the fuller phase more than outweighs its greater distance from Earth, which I can't understand at all. The context suggests that this sentence is supposed to be explaining why Mercury is brighter in its gibbous phase than in its full phase, but I don't see that it achieves that goal. I can't make any sense of it at all, not least because of all the comparative forms (smaller, farther, fuller, greater) that don't explain what's being compared (smaller/farther/fuller/greater than what?).
Angr (
talk •
contribs)
10:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I added references throughout the historical studies sections, and rewrote the part explaining why Mercury is brighter when further away - is it clearer now? Any further parts needing work? Thanks for your comments.
Worldtraveller10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: A place less hospitable than the US South! Very good article, very comprehensive, and very readable, given the scientific writing necessary for it. The Spacers do good work in general, and now PlanetaryTraveller has a good submission on the sun's meteor shield, from hornéd helmet to I. Ron Core. Formatting issues are formatting; they are after the content, and, while those with an interest in consistency can ask for consistency, they're surely not substantive objections.
Geogre14:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, excellent article. One little thing that I saw, though, was that the referencing format is not consistent. In parts, it uses a bare link after the formatted reference, and in others, it uses descriptive text as part of the link. It's something so trivial it doesn't merit opposing, though.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)reply