Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dwarf planet/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC) [1].

Notified: Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Real4jyy, Serendipodous, WP Astronomy, noticed in August 2021

This 2008 promotion is one of the oldest notices remaining at WP:FARGIVEN. There are substantial amounts of uncited text an unresolved debate from April regarding the accuracy of a statement. This should be saveable, but as the concerns were originally raised nearly four years ago, here we go to FAR. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note -- this shouldn't influence the outcome of the FAR, but what needs to happen if the article is demoted: Dwarf planet is a featured topic, and WP:NCASTRO explicitly relies on that fact (the guideline for whether or not an object should be considered a dwarf planet on Wikipedia depends on whether it is included in the featured topic). Compare the discussion here and here. Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2 The notice in August 2021 resulted in a discussion with responses from 2021-2023, Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 8#Featured article status. Quote from there (CMD, 21 December 2023): Significant work was put into this article following my comment above, much by Kwami. Better to raise/tag any individual issues with a fresh look, rather than going into FAR.

As for the recent unresolved accuracy debate, which was largely the work of Nrco0e and myself, I agree it's an issue, but that's not something we can solve on Wikipedia. What we can do is decide how to handle the unclear situation, and I'd be grateful for additional input on that. Renerpho (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think we can resolve it without violating WP:SYNTH. Serendi^podous 06:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Kwami has since helped resolve it partially, at least in the article lede. The discussion about what to do with the "History" and "Name" sections is ongoing. I think they're both bloated, and have said as much. Renerpho (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the passage to remove the disputed text. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment from Graeme Bartlett The images do not have alt= text. Isn't this a requirement for FA? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: This is part of WP:FLCR, but not WP:FACR. Renerpho (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will recommend delist as it appears there is no intention to improve the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. What I said had nothing to do with improving the article. You asked about the requirements for FA, I answered that question. Renerpho (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: I found your response so startling that I asked again for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. The discussion linked there, and the multiple discussions and RfC's linked therein, confirm what I thought. Alt-text is not part of the featured article criteria, and (from the 2019 RfC) there is consensus against requiring the use of alt-text for featured articles, but rough consensus that it should be encouraged when possible.

It is noted in that RfC that good alt-text is difficult to write, and I agree. It is also noted that accessibility is important, and I agree with that as well. I don't know if you consider the matter of alt-text to be the deciding factor why Dwarf planet should be delisted. It's not even been mentioned before. Renerpho (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was making assumptions, that may not be correct, that no one actually wants to improve the article. Thanks to Renerpho for answering the question. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of § History of the concept is a bit crufty. It relies on pop science and primary sources. I think it could be trimmed or condensed. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still 8 CN tags. Move to FARC. Hog Farm _Talk 00:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't say I've got much to counter. I'm in no position to resolve most of those, and it seems I have overestimated interest in the article. Renerpho (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is very much @Kwamikagami:'s article. He knows it better than anyone. So it's very much his call. Serendi^podous 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i haven't kept up with recent revelations on the history of the concept, and I've got a lot of other things on my plate right now that I've been neglecting and that take priority over wp — kwami (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - sourcing issues unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Concerns remain, work has stalled. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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