Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vega

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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

---

Vega

For your consideration, this article is about an important star in the constellation Lyra. Recently I have added a significant amount of material to this page. It has undergone a peer review and is at good article status, so I think that it can satisfy the FA criteria. Please take a look and see if you agree. If not, an identification of specific concerns would be appreciated.

Unfortunately I couldn't find a good astrophotograph of the constellation that could be used on this page, although I did ask for one on the requested pictures page. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Great looking article, I just have one minor thing that annoyed me, I noticed in your references you have notes, and actual references mixed together, others may disagree but is there anyway to separate them? --Cloveious (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - all the technical stuff looks great and you've done a good job of making technical information accessible to a wider audience. I corrected a couple of typos and reduced a couple of commas. It is comprehensive though I thought a mention of other common names, in Allen I recalled him calling it Wega alot, and saw it written elsewhere. I can't recall any other cultural stuff and right now don't have the Allen book handy, though not a strict deal-brekaer. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I tweaked the etymology text slightly to mention the earlier name Wega. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Looks like a strong article, well referenced, although I would agree with the above, that the notes and references should be separate for an article of this complexity. Owain.davies (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Unfortunately I'm going to politely decline. If they ever release a <ref>-like capability for maintaining a separate notes section then it would make sense. But my experience with a separate notes section has not been good. The old-style notes are awkward to maintain and somebody is liable to merge them back into the references. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.