Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Makemake (dwarf planet)

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 17:39, 17 August 2008 [1].

Makemake (dwarf planet)[edit]

Nominator(s): Serendi ^pod ous

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached GA and undergone a subsequent peer review. I'd like to make this a co-nom between myself, User:Nergaal and User:Ruslik0. Thank you. Serendi ^pod ous 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't there be at least one actual image of the planet in the article? Even just as a dot? Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this have copyright issues? Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a downsampled version of it to the article, along with fair use rationale. We'll see what the fair-use ~~nazis~~ detractors have to say about it. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments sources look good, link checker is still being wonky, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question - The image Image:Makemake precovery.jpg is tagged as not replaceable, this seems unlikely, what efforts have been made to find a free alternative? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the usual Google searches, I also searched nasaimages.org (which would be the best bet for a free version). As far as anyone can tell, Image:Makemake precovery.jpg is the only photograph of makemake on the internet at all. Regardless, any images not taken by NASA would be copyrighted by the observatory from which they were taken, and it doesn't appear that NASA has imaged this ~~planet~~_{dwarf planet} yet (as strange as that seems). If you can find anything from NASA, please replace this image with it. Kaldari (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant really see this being justified under WP:NFCC #8, it is just a speck of light surrounded by other specks of lights. It doesnt convey location, size or any other real information, and as such it useage means the article fails the FA criteria #3, otherwise the images are fine Fasach Nua (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the article meets criteria 3 in full Fasach Nua (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding what the planet actually looks like from Earth is an important part of understanding the topic, wouldn't you say? Kaldari (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possibly, but if just looks like a white speck of light then you dont need a non-free image to convey that information Fasach Nua (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I didn't find any major show stoppers, but I do see a few (mostly minor) issues.

Support—At least in the areas of knowledge with which I have some familiarity, this article satisfies the FA criteria and will be a worthy addition to the ranks. Thanks go to the editors for resolving my concerns.—RJH (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the Physical characteristics infobox, please consider using "Unknown" rather than '?' or the speculative 'pole-on ?'. Also, please use   between all values and units.~~
"Its discovery was announced on July 29, 2005, which was the same day as Eris and two days after 2003 EL61." I tripped over this sentence a little, possibly because it seems incomplete. Perhaps something like this would work: "A team led by Michael Brown discovered Makemake on March 31, 2005, and it was announced to the public on July 29, 2005. The discovery of Eris was made public the same day, following the announcement of 2003 EL61 two days earlier."
~~Second sentence, first paragraph: 'ecliptic' should be explained and linked at first use, rather than second use.~~
There seem to be a few too many unnecessary uses of parenthetical text. For example, "...at the time of its discovery (in the northern constellation of Coma Berenices)," works just as well without the parentheses, at least to me.
~~The paragraph about Clyde Tombaugh is missing some introductory text. It should mention who he was, what he was doing and during what time frame.~~

How about now? Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm not sure that all readers will be familiar with tilde notation (e~0.15). Please consider using a word instead.~~ Probably also applies to the infobox.

What about replacing it with ≈ instead? Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed ~. Ruslik (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Both Makemake and EL61 are currently far above the ecliptic." Perhaps you could state how far, at least for Makemake? (I'm guessing > 52 AU x sin(29°) = 25 AU, which is pretty darn far. =)~~

I think the angle would be more useful. Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified this. Ruslik (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"... it lies in the region of the belt gravitationally unaffected by the orbit of Neptune..." Sorry but orbits don't cause gravity. Probably should also use some relative term, rather than saying it is unaffected.

what about now? Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...lies in the region of the belt far enough from the orbit of Neptune to be gravitationally affected by it." Sorry but that makes even less sense. Perhaps something like: "...lies in the region of the belt where the gravitational influence of Neptune does not have a significant perturbing effect."

I rewrote this part. Ruslik (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works; thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~"...relatively low eccentricities..." How low?~~
In the sentence, "To be considered a plutoid", I was unclear what "H= +1" means. Perhaps the sentence could clarify by stating that this is the magnitude at a distance of 1 AU? Also, could the difference between this value and the V-band absolute magnitude value be explained? it is unclear from the linked article.

+1 might mean something more complicated than the 1AU. Somebody understanding the concelt well should add a note stating what does the +1 translate into and how. Nergaal (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this sentence. Ruslik (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My last sentence was a misunderstanding on my part. Sorry.—RJH (talk)

~~"...large enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium." could clarify that this means the object's shape will be an oblate spheroid.~~

Now? Nergaal (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~"...red color in visible." Isn't "in visible" redundant? Or is this spectrum stretching into the infrared?~~

I rephrased it. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~"it will be the dominant component of it" Double 'it'? Perhaps: "Nitrogen, if present, will be its dominant component." or some such.~~
~~"existence of atmosphere" possibly missing "an".~~
~~"has probably been lost" or "was probably lost"?~~
~~"radius of 0.4 arcseconds" Is this orbital radius or satellite size? What does this translate to in terms of distance or size?~~

I assume is pixel size-> satellite radius. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~For Temperature note "c", could you include a source for the formula? (I.e. a "See such and such".)~~

Otherwise it looks good. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified where it was taken from. Ruslik (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

Comment - I'm not sure I like the image map. There is no indication clicking will take you to the planets page rather than a larger copy of the image. Further review later. -Ravedave (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues concerning the image map are not relevant to the FAC. If you want to discuss that, go to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Serendi ^pod ous 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm a little concerned about the physical characteristics data that is being generated rather than taken from papers, it's border line OR. -Ravedave (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The formula for temperature can be found (in various forms) in all papers dealing with thermophysical properties of celestrial objects. In the case of Makemake the calculated temperatures agree with temperatures given in cited papers. I used the calculations because in different publications the temperatures can be slightly different (29 or 30 K for instance), and authers often don't explain how they calculated them and what parameters were used. I intended merely to unify estimates. The gravitational acceleration and escape velocity are calculated because they are difficult to find. The volume or surface area—this is too simple. Ruslik (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those issues are common to many similar articles, including many featured articles. They are not unique to this one. Serendi ^pod ous 23:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they are in other FA articles doesn't make it right. The image map is useless, there is a description right below where the planets can be linked. All it does it give the image nonstandard behavior compared to the rest of wikipedia. As for the values - a quick Google search brings up plenty of pages with the values. Please find a good source and reference them, there is no reason to calculate them.-Ravedave (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The calculations may be regarded as Subject-specific common knowledge see Wikipedia:When_to_cite. The values in various pages found by google are often from Wikipedia. Ruslik (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good prose, well written. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article featured or not? Gimmebot updated the article history to say it was promoted, but it hasn't been. Serendi ^pod ous 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GimmeBot did not update the article history to say it was promoted; articlehistory still shows it as a GA, and if you check WP:FA, you can see it's not featured. GimmeBot added a featured topic to the articlehistory, which is unrelated to this article's FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Did not know you were nominating it yet. Another piece for the esteemed Serendipodous. --Meld shal 42? 14:14, 17 August 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.