Wikipedia:Featured article review/H II region/archive1

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 Joelr31 22:53, 7 June 2009 [1].

H II region

FAR commentary

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts; main editor vanished

This article has very fiew citation and is not so complete; some sections need an improvement, expecially about the origin. Furthermore, a concise explanation of the late stages of the regions is needed. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I translated this article to spanish wikipedia and made it a good article there, the spanish one is a little bit larger and referenced, so it would be a good source to make this one better. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have improved somewhat since the start of FAR, and I'll try to help with it more during this week. Random astronomer (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new source and will add some more. Ruslik (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ruslik's work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite for the Herschel quote?
Perhaps the details of Russell's and Bok's seminal papers could be given?
I wonder if there should be a cite for comments like "thought to contain"?
There is some repetition of points from the end of the "Observations" section at the end of the "Origin and lifetime" section, though neither one looks out-of-place particularly. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~, the work done is not enough: it's good adding references, but the article needs an improvement on large-scale. Quoting Cirt. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but it's important not to forget this article... --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I have made some fixes to the references and it's little nicer now. I think to article is not the bad enough to delist though it need a lot of work. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 04:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently all statements (except some minor) in the article are cited. I also expanded the lead, which now satisfies FA criteria. I think the article may be kept as FA. Ruslik (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finished. The article can be definitely kept now. Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 1c issues have been addressed IMO. Good work Ruslik! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"thought to contain many times as much matter as would be needed to create a planetary system like that of the Milky Way." The Milky Way is a galaxy rather than a planetary system. DrKiernan (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 09:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just one problem now: File:Rosette Nebula dss2.jpg is nominated for deletion [2]. I recommend removing the image for now, until the deletion request is resolved. DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: problems raised are addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are repetitive words from higher in the heading hierarchy in several section headings, per WP:MSH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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