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 18:14, 29 April 2008.

Nebular hypothesis[edit]

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been significantly expanded and now, in my opinion, is FA ready. This article is about the currently prevailing theory on formation of the planets. Ruslik (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

I actually can not find any Citation templates in the article. Only 'Cite ... templates are used. Could you give a specific example ? Ruslik (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the bottom when you edit, it shows the templates being used. One is citation. That's how I check, I just look at the templates in use. My guess is that because of Harvard ref templates in the article for Wurchterl and Papaloizou that's what is showing the citation template in use. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it shows 'Template:Citation/core/testing', but I don't know what it means. WP:CITE#Citation templates says nothing about Harvard reference templates. I actually used Harvard reference templates because there is no Cite equivalent for citing book chapters. I think it does not cause any inconsistency in the format, because all such citations in the article have the same format (Harvard reference). Ruslik (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the inconsistency, it's that some folks have reported glitches when the two templates are mixed, or so I'm told. Sandy just told me that that was one of the things I should look for when I'm checking sources. You do know that the cite encyclopedia template works for citing works like chapters that are written by different folks than the main author of the book, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed Harvard Refs to Cite encyclopedia. Ruslik (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Current ref 41 (Canup, Robin M, Ward, William R "formation of the Galilean ...) seems to be missing the journal it was published in.~~

Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All other links and sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did not give it a thorough reading, because the topic is extremely dense, but from what I have read, it appears to be well done. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—It's a fine article and appears to meet the FA criteria. I may be seeing the occasional missing article or hyphen, but I'll let the grammar experts check that. =) —RJH (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an excellent explanation of the hypothesis. Despite the necessary astronomical terms, the prose is engaging. I enjoyed reading the article and I will enjoy reading it again. It is a fine example of those few and far between articles that engage the reader enough to make return visits. I usually spot problems with grammar; there are none that I can see. Well done. --GrahamColm ^Talk 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sorry, Ruslik, I did not get to this during PR; not editing much. Please can you deal with the excess bluelink problem? The same terms are linked over and over again. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed excessive bluelinks. Now every long subsection has only one wikilink for every term. Ruslik (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there are some missing hyphens throughout the article, but I'm not a grammarian: perhaps ask Tony1 to check?

producing 1 cm sized particles.[10] ... The accretion process, by which 1 km planetesimals grow into 1,000 km sized bodies, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 29 April 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.