Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scattered disc

Scattered disc

Nominator(s):--Lord₪Sunday, Serendi^podous

• Featured article candidates/Scattered disc

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because it is an excellent article, and extremely well done. It was a Featured article team collaboration, with excellent help from uninvolved users such as Geometry guy, who gained some new experience from this article. It has pretty much been the WP Solar System focus since Oort cloud was featured, until we got sidetracked and we featured 3 other articles. I think this article is well referenced and extremely well written, after all, it is Serendipodous! --Lord₪Sunday 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

LordSunday already has two a FAC running that requires substantial attention to unresolved issues; unless Ling.Nut is prepared to take primary and substantial responsibility for this FAC, it should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, two noms? i have one that is a co-nom, but then whatever, let Serendipodous take it over then. --Lord₪Sunday 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrected, one (name confusion); at any rate, the issues are substantial and unaddressed, so you shouldn't be adding another nomination, particularly at a time when some of the nominations that you have put up are stretching resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, apologies Sandy, but I didn't really want to nominate that. It was really Editorofthewiki's doing, I don't want to pass the baton to Serendipodous but I think he'll do better anyway. --Lord₪Sunday 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, OK. I'll handle it. Serendi^podous 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to sandy) What about that FAC was unresolved. I myself have two FACs running at the same time, that and 1964 Gabon coup d'etat. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel bitten, ever since I've been here it just feels like Sandy doesn't like me. I mean like, since I was first at FAC, in June 2007. --Lord₪Sunday 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's better; I don't see any indication that Ling.Nut is aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ling.Nut removed. [1] [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've been using the toolbox, and got through the dablinks (all fixed now :) ), but the external link to uchicago.edu (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/338692) turns up "The requested article is not currently available on this site." Can this be corrected somehow? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 'This makes scattered objects "among the most distant and cold objects in the Solar System". - why is this in quotes? If it's in quotes because it's a quote (which seems rather apparent), why would a quote be necessary or appropriate here?

  i believe Serendipodous was going to state this himself, but this quote is fine, it follows what the lead is about, summarizing the article. --Lord₪Sunday 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Eris, the largest dwarf planet in the Solar System, lies within the scattered disc." - This sentence feels random; it doesn't seem important enough to mention in the lead, and it interrupts the flow.

  Heh. I never liked that sentence. Added "somehwere", it seems like it has better flow to me. --Lord₪Sunday 01:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Due to its unstable nature, astronomers now consider the scattered disc to be the place of origin for most periodic comets observed in the Solar System, with the centaurs, a population of icy bodies between Jupiter and Neptune, being the intermediate stage in an object's migration from the disc to the inner Solar System, where perturbations from the giant planets will send it close to Earth, transforming it into a periodic comet." - this sentence needs to be broken up.

  done. --Lord₪Sunday 01:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "cleared out over the age of the Solar System..." - over the "age"? How about over the "history"?

  chaged to growth. --Lord₪Sunday 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Indeed, some objects, like (29981) 1999 TD10" - better phrased as "Objects such as (29981) 1999 TD10".

  Changed to however. --Lord₪Sunday 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "While" should generally not be used to indicate a contradiction between two statements. Other words ("but", "though") work equally well, and have no secondary connotation.

I haven't read the entire article yet, but the prose in general looks fairly good. I'm inclined to support. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The last and most important point has not been addressed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bit odd, but done. Serendi^podous 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - No more - someone must have taken care of all but one before you. Anyways, everything looks good. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Images - David Fuchs
  • Image:Tempel 1 Deep Impact 5min.jpg - free image from NASA, proper license and source
  • Image:Eris and dysnomia2.jpg - free image from NASA, proper license and source
  • Image:TheKuiperBelt Projections 100AU Classical SDO.svg - self-made SVG, author and source data noted.
  • Image:TheKuiperBelt 100AU SDO.svg - ditto as above (although you might want to move all the technical explanations to below the important licensing stuff?)
  • Image:Lhborbits.png - self-made, free, license and source present
  • Image:2003 UB313 near-infrared spectrum.gif - released by permission from author, or so the description states; can we get a source and verified permission (via OTRS, etc?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed Mike Brown about it, but knowing his schedule, I don't think I'll get a response for a while. Serendi^podous 07:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't heard yet. It will be a while before he contacts me. Assuming he does, of course. Serendi^podous 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.nineplanets.org/ a reliable source?
• Current ref 18 (J. Horner et. al) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 37 (Joseph M Hahn) Is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 43 (David C Jewitt) is lacking a publisher
• The link checker shows a site that needs an academic subscription to access, please note that in the reference.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Refs fixed. Serendi^podous 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Support jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Comment The nearest distance from the Sun approached by scattered objects is ~35 AU, but they can reach distances ... observational bias due to their farther distance means that far fewer scattered disc objects have been observed to date.[4] Much repetition of farther and distance in this chunk, some can be trimmed, eg The nearest approach to the Sun by... jimfbleak (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reworded. Serendi^podous 08:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:*As of 2006, 96 scattered disc objects have been identified,[10] including 2007 UK126 This may just be showing my ignorance, but I assumed 2007 meant the year of discovery, i.e. after 2006. Also I've replaced another farther with greater, and lower-cased the c-cd link. jimfbleak (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The closest thing to an up to date reference for the number of SDOs is the Minor Planet Cneter's list. Unfortunately, not only does it not differentiate between SDOs and Centaurs but it also doesn't number its list. By my count (repeated 5 times), the list currently contains about 230 objects, of which roughly 100 approach the Sun closer than Neptune, making them centaurs. So I'd say, as a guess, that there are ~130 SDOs known now. Serendi^podous 10:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Subbed the MPC list with "as of 2008, over 100 SDOs have been identified." Serendi^podous 11:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I have added a few fact and clarifyme tags where I though the text might need them, but otherwise I believe this article is ready to be featurable. Nergaal (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good, apart from a "citation needed" tag for the first sentence under the heading "Orbits". -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 14:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Support The article is scientifically sound. It does not neglect any major facts about scattered disk and is therefore comprehensive. The article contains necessary citations from reliable sources. There may be slight roughness in the text—some polishing may be necessary, though I am not an expert in the English language. So in my opinion article satisfies FA criteria. Ruslik (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Editorofthewiki
  • Is a scattered disc a "distant region of the Solar System", or an object? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • According to WP:LEADCITE, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." I count 4 cites in the lead, and the material doesn't seam that challengeable, except the quote which should stay. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This keeps changing. Every time I leave the lead uncited, people tell me to cite it. When I cite it, they tell me not to. Serendi^podous 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a nitpick. You can keep it as is. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The "Discovery" section seams a bit short being an important part of the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded it a bit but really there isn't much to say about it that isn't already mentioned in Kuiper belt. Serendi^podous 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then incorporate a bit more that is mentioned in Kuiper belt. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair to Serendipodous, not that much is known about the scattered disc or the oort cloud, so this is pushing a bit too far. Kuipet belt is another piece of work, the dsicovery section is fine the way it is, IMO. --Lord₪Sunday 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• • "Although the Kuiper belt was initially believed to be the source of the Solar System's ecliptic comets, studies of the region since 1992 have revealed that the orbits within (what is now called) the Kuiper belt are relatively stable, and that these comets originate from the more dynamic scattered disc." This sentence is too long, and can be reworded a bit. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Scattered disc objects come within gravitational range of Neptune at their closest approaches (~30 AU) but their farthest distances reach many times that." Do you know how far? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "A third reservoir of trans-Neptunian objects, the Oort cloud, is believed to exist, although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made." Excuse my lack of knowledge on space, but how can an observation not be direct? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Um, it hasn't been confirmed. I think that's fairly obvious, lol. --Lord₪Sunday 00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's fairly straightforward: you can observe the effects of something, with observing the object itself. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case; it depends on whether that text is a direct quote from a reliable source, or the wording tumbled out of some editor's late night coffee-stained scratch pad. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 07:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Some scientists use "scattered Kuiper belt object" (or SKBO) for bodies of the scattered disc." Why is this bolded? Also, "some scientits" is a bit weasely. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  Both done. --Lord₪Sunday 00:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)