Talk:Pluto/GA1

GA on hold[edit]

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Fail (citations missing)

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass (1 tiny problen)

Additional comments :

China started official use the name in 1933, doesn't make sense.
There are needed citation ... if it can't be found, the text can be put on the talk page.
The line Many details about Pluto remain unknown, mainly due to the fact that it has not been visited up close by spacecraft and that Pluto's distance from Earth makes in-depth investigations difficult. would probably require a citation to show that it isn't original research.
Pluto's apparent magnitude is fainter than 14 m and therefore a telescope is required for observation. To be easily seen, a telescope of around 30 cm aperture is desirable. It looks star-like even in very large telescopes because its angular diameter is only 0.15. is a bit technical, could it be lessened?
Is a paragraph such as Among the objects of the Solar System... really useful as it is only comparison and not bringing useful details to the article.
The word recently should be removed. Same for expected, recent, previous occurrence.
A citation should be given for The current best hypothesis is that the south pole of Pluto came out of shadow for the first time in 120 years in 1987, and extra nitrogen sublimated from a polar cap. It will take decades for the excess nitrogen to condense out of the atmosphere. as it borders pov.
In the reference section there is a book published in 2007 ???
It doesn't seem like the text that is in the article can be found in the textbooks mentioned below. The material used to write the article may not be present in the reference section. This article will need to give more inline citations for that matter unless textbooks are given.
Image:Venetia phair.jpg fails to give its fair use rationale.

Lincher 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It fails article stability - more than 250 edits in the past 2 weeks, a nomination to rename the article and a nomination for WP:AID each individually could fail this WP:GA nomination, but together definitely make for an unstable article. Renominate in a month or two after these issues are resolved. Davodd 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]