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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 23:08, 5 February 2012 [1].

---

Solar eclipse[edit]

Solar eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Solar eclipse

• Featured article review/Solar eclipse/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Moon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eclipses, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System. Nominator and main editor vanished.

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has declined in quality, and does not appear to be watched or cared for. Specific criteria of concern are:

• 1a (prose): Take for example the repetition in the very first sentence: "As seen from the Earth, a solar eclipse occurs when the Moon ... blocks the Sun as viewed from a location on Earth."
• 1b (comprehensiveness): The history section leaps from 1095 to 1879 completely ignoring the entire Renaissance and Enlightenment periods.
• 1c (verifiability): An example claim requiring attribution (and possibly balance) is "The last total solar eclipse on Earth will occur in slightly less than 600 million years."
• 2b (structure): The final section is a collection of links.

DrKiernan (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the specific examples you give in 1a and 1c, as far as 1b I'm not sure there is much history to mention, but I'm not sure. Does 2b refer to the External Links section? This is bad? I have not looked at the FA criteria in a while. For now I seem to be the article's only Shepard. --TimL (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm reassured by your response. On 2b, it's the section Solar eclipse#Recent and forthcoming solar eclipses that concerns me. I'd like to examine other ways of formatting this section that do not involve listing bare links to templates, but I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative idea. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bare links, but I still don't like it, visually, however I think it is better than before. --TimL (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a table. Don't know if this is a great solution, but better than before. Fixed a couple image formatting bugs. The section on Geometry needs better image positioning, but I can't quite wrap my head around how to do it the best way yet. --TimL (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Dr. Kiernan (and anyone else who's interested!) will you please give us an update on your thoughts about this article? Is the work done enough to keep it as an FA, or should the article be moved to the FARC section? Dana boomer (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still working on the article, and would like it to remain in the review section for the moment, as I was hoping for some other independent comment. The history section is the weak point for me, as I'm not convinced it's focused on the most important eclipses in the history of observational astronomy, as one would expect. DrKiernan (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've re-written the section. I'm not planning any further work on the article, and have no more comments. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• 1a I don't see any reason why the article needs bullet points; they should be in prose.
• 1c I have concerns over the quality of references. What makes mreclipse a high quality and reliable source? There is a book by Mobberley listed but no citations from that book are used. A few paragraphs are missing citations.
• 2c Missing page numbers, publisher information, retrieved on dates.
• 3 and 4 No problems found.
• A move to FARC would be appropriate. Brad (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 1c, MrEclipse is operated by Fred Espenak. I've moved Mobberley into a "Further reading" section. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, when there is someone obviously willing to work on the article, try working with them in the FAR section before advocating a move to FARC, please. (Dr. Kiernan, thank you for your work.) Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dana, DrKiernan said: "I'm not planning any further work on the article, and have no more comments" Therefore it appeared he was finished. That will teach me not to believe anything anyone writes. Brad (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that I was done with my own comments and plans, not that I would refuse to consider or respond to other editors' comments. DrKiernan (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only concerns I have left are 1c and 2c. Brad (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No FARC My concerns were fixed; thanks. Brad (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1a: I'll take a look at the bullet points. What is the problem with the bullet points? They seem highly appropriate to me.

1c: "MrEclipse" is the maintainer of eclipse predictions for NASA. I think that alone makes hime a very high quality and reliable source.

2c: I may not have access to the publications to fix this.

A move to FARC would be premature. --TimL (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall I think this article is not too far off being kept but some more work is needed. The section that needs improving is the viewing section, concerning danger to the retina from the sun. One would hope for some medical literature on the matter to tighten up the section. I'll post at WP:MED and take a look myself a bit later. The history section reads well now but some of the top segment is a bit choppy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see DrK is still at work; have you pinged in Serendipodous (talk · contribs)? This is curious in the lead:

  The last total solar eclipse was on July 11, 2010; the next will be on November 13, 2012. The solar eclipses of 2011 were all partial eclipses; the last one occurred on November 25, 2011. The next solar eclipse will be an annular eclipse on May 20, 2012.

  It reads newsy, but more, it is written in a way that will require constant updating (last, next, etc). The lead seems to focus on lesser important aspects of the article. Four types of solar eclipses uses incorrect WP:ITALICS rather than WP:MOSBOLD, which should be used for lists. Image clutter in the Geometry section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinged Serendipodous. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the info about recent and upcoming eclipses, definitely does not belong in the lead. Image clutterI agree is a problem. --TimL (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC to keep the FAR process on track as intended (two weeks in each phase). DrK has done most of the work, but issues remain. Serendipodous is editing, but hasn't responded to four-day-old ping. Move this along for feedback as to Keep or Delist in the FARC phase-- if someone shows up to help DrK, all the better! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heading towards "keep" territory, I'll scout around for anything else to add on the medical/eye damage bit. That's the last piece of the puzzle for me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has now been fixed, Serendipodous didn't weigh in, but I don't see anything egregious enough now to warrant a move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Close Consensus against move to FARC; Casliber can work on the article, if he wishes, outwith this process. DrKiernan (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.