Talk:Galactic tide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
Galactic tide was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: March 27, 2007 |
[edit] Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 27, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Too confusing. The lead does not provide an adequate introduction of the topic; many details go unexplained.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Good.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Could be longer; more information is needed on the topic, such as how a galactic tide originates and the history of its discovery.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Good.
- 5. Article stability? Good.
- 6. Images?: Good.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inconsistency
This article states "This causes the Earth to slightly flatten out as, on one side, its water is moved outward toward the Moon while on the opposite side, where the Moon's gravity is weakest, rotational force pulls water away from it, creating two "bulges"."
The article on Tidal Forces states "Tidal acceleration does not require rotation or orbiting bodies; e.g. the body may be freefalling in a straight line under the influence of a gravitational field while still being influenced by (changing) tidal acceleration"
and gives the subtraction of forces on the whole object from unequal forces on the circumference of an object as the reason for the pattern of tidal forces (and therefore "bulges")
- I think the whole discussion of how Earth's tides work is misplaced here, and particularly so in the introduction. It's also an invitation to various incomplete or inaccurate attempts at description like the one mentioned above. If someone is interested in galactic tides, they're unlikely to appreciate a long waffling-on about Earth-Moon tides right at the start. I have streamlined the introduction to this effect. Deuar 11:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the criteria listed for this article's failed GA nom, it's main (indeed only) issue was that it didn't explain enough to the lay reader. That expanded intro is an attempt to address that issue. Serendipodous 11:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Drat. So much for an easy fix. Still, I think this stuff does not belong in the intro, maybe in a first section. What do you think? Deuar 13:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure to be honest. My knowledge of tidal forces is fairly minimal, and I've been looking for information on it that I can understand. Problem is a lot of it seems contradictory. Serendipodous 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, all the tidal stuff is easily and copiously mixed up. Deuar 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure to be honest. My knowledge of tidal forces is fairly minimal, and I've been looking for information on it that I can understand. Problem is a lot of it seems contradictory. Serendipodous 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Drat. So much for an easy fix. Still, I think this stuff does not belong in the intro, maybe in a first section. What do you think? Deuar 13:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the criteria listed for this article's failed GA nom, it's main (indeed only) issue was that it didn't explain enough to the lay reader. That expanded intro is an attempt to address that issue. Serendipodous 11:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
