Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Planets beyond Neptune - Wikipedia

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 29 July 2008 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Serendi^podous

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been recommended for FA consideration after completing its peer review. Serendi^podous 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• and a mean distance from the Sun of 43 AU. Lowell assumed that, like the gas giants, Planet X would have a low density and a high albedo, and would thus present a disc covering one second of arc and have an apparent magnitude of between 12 and 13.

What does "high albedo" and "a disc covering one second of arc and have an apparent magnitude of between 12 and 13." mean? I consider myself reasonably educated in the sciences, and I have no clue. Provide wikilinks, or strike.

I clarified this sentence. Ruslik (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lowell's sudden death in 1916 temporarily halted his observatory's search for Planet X. His disappointment at not locating the world, according to one friend, "virtually killed him"

I don't like the construction of this sentence. "his observatory's search for Planet X" doesn't read well. "disappointment at not locating the world" also doesn't read well. At least change world to planet--this isn't poetry here. Can one be disappointed at something? I thought "in" was the only option.

Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The two images of each section were then placed in a machine called a blink comparator, which rapidly shifted them back and forth to create the illusion of movement of any objects that had changed position or appearance between photographs.

Passive and verbose. Try something like: "...a blink comparator, which created a time lapse illusion which exposed the movement of planetary bodies."

Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On February 18, 1930, after having searched for nearly a year and examined nearly 2 million stars,[1] Tombaugh discovered a possible moving object on photographic plates taken on January 23 and January 29 of that year.

"examined" to "examining" and strike "a possible"

Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A lesser-quality photograph taken on January 21 helped confirm the movement.

Strike "helped," change "confirm" to "confirmed."

Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is well sourced, and the sources are of a high quality.

Overall, I think the prose needs to be improved. Lwnf360 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Weak Support - Because I am [once again] amazed by the comprehensiveness of this article, I support. However, Serendi, not everyone will overlook the fact that the article only has 35 references. --Meld§hal *talk to me* 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—I did a PR on this article and all my concerns were addressed at that time. It's a fine article on the subject and, as far as I know, comprehensive (considering that it is about something that may not exist). I'm not at all concerned about the reference tally as there is a fair amount of re-use. Another image or two might be nice, but it's okay now.—RJH (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FYI, I can say from experience that locating a public domain image of a planet that doesn't exist is somewhat difficult :-) Serendi^podous 16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I wasn't necessarily suggesting an image of a planet. No matter.—RJH (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments...ok, diving right in..I think we are over the line here. Maybe a few more prose tweaks but no deal-brekaers for mine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Since the discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, there had been considerable speculation that a ninth planet might exist beyond its orbit. - something about this sentence bugs me, as there was speculation, then they found Pluto, Pluto is then 9th planet, then there's more, then we're back to 8. It simplifies things to the point they can be misconstrued. I do concede this is a hairy point and right now I haven't a clue how it can be rephrased but I am ruminating...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (addendum - maybe just 'another planet' or 'further planets')[reply]

::..the irregularities observed in Uranus's orbit were due to an incorrect measurement of Neptune's mass.. - could state here that it was an under or overestimate (more exact).

::Although many of the larger members of this group - erm, I thought it was only 4 or 5...(?) Do we have the exact number? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Multiple prose problems. Here are two almost at random: "Besides supposed gravitational effects, probability arguments have also been used to suggest the existence of planet-sized objects in the outer Solar System. Sedna's 12,000-year orbit is so extremely eccentric that, according to Mike Brown, who discovered it in 2004, there was only a one-in-sixty chance of it ever having been observed." The first sentence has a dangling modifier. The second is clearly nonsense: in fact the probability of it ever having been observed is 1; it has, after all, been observed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a lot better, and I've been learning a lot as I've been going through it. The prose could still do with some polish, and (as per below) I do think that the referencing needs to be more exact. But I'm withdrawing my previous "oppose." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well researched and adequately referenced. Some minor prose issues such as the above, but worthy of FA jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—I agree with my colleague, Jbmurray. Here are just random examples from the top only.

• The bolded items scattered through Para 1 are very distracting. This is a classic case where the guideline on the bolding in the lead falls into an exceptional category, where the topic is hard to restate at the opening. I suggest you debold all three items.
• "The X in the name represents an unknown and is pronounced as the letter, as opposed to the Roman numeral for 10, as it would not, at the time, have been the tenth planet." What is "it"? The reader has to work too hard.
• "in fact"—redundant.
• Metric conversions, please.
• "no planet was found"—unnecessary passive voice; recast with the previous sentence.
• "... Lowell conducted a second search from 1913 to 1915. In that year ..."—Um, which year?
• "...(or half ..."—It's not either or, so remove "or".
• "low density (meaning large size)"—meaning? No, "indicating" or "suggesting" or "equated with".

And lots more. Someone new to the article needs to go through it carefully. Tony (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I participated in writing this article, I have not read the text for more than two weeks and therefore can contribute into the copy-edit. I have copy-edited several parts of the article and hope to finish the work tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article states of Robert Harrington: "He calculated that any Planet X would be at roughly three times the distance from the sun than Neptune; its orbit would be highly eccentric, and strongly inclined to the ecliptic—the planet's orbit would be at roughly a 90-degree angle from the orbital plane of the other known planets.[21]" However, reading the article cited, Harrington appears to say quite the opposite: "The history of previous searches increases the probability of a planetary orbit moderately inclined to the ecliptic, for a planet brighter than seventeenth magnitude. However the lack of discrepancies in the declination observations argues for a planet close to the plane of the ecliptic" (p. 63). Is this not saying quite the opposite? Indeed, I can't see anything in Harrington's article that supports any part of the sentence in the WP article. On the other hand, this is not my area of expertise at all. I could be quite wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going on a quote from page 60 of Ken Croswell's Planet Quest, my main source for this article. It says, "[Harrington's] calculations indicated that the planet's mean distance from the Sun was about 100 times the Earth's, or a little over three times Neptune's, and it traveled on a highly elliptical orbit. The planet also journeyed far above and below the plane of the Solar System."

Of course, Ken Croswell could be wrong, or Harrington might have revised his predictions. After all, he was looking for a non-existent planet, so theoretically it could be anywhere. I didn't sub that paper as a reference, and I can only read its abstract, so I can't comment on its differences.Serendi^podous 09:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a different ref. Harrington actually said about 32 degree inclination, not 90 degree. Ruslik (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand. I presume that 32 degrees can still be described as "highly eccentric, and strongly inclined to the ecliptic." Right? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While we're at it: in general, the references should be much more specific, indicating page numbers, especially for direct quotations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is not necessary to give a page number for every citation, because it inflates reflist out of all proportions. Ruslik (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the whole point of citing references is to be able to look them up. They must have all the necessary information--including page number. Lwnf360 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS actually says that citations to books should have pages numbers (where appropriate). However journal articles already have page numbers, and to add additional number on the top of them is unnecessary. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 28 July 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.