Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of molecules in interstellar space

List of molecules in interstellar space

Self-nomination — This is a well-defined list with each entry having a reference. I believe it meets all the requirements of the featured lists criteria—I've been the only contributor for past two months. (The Detection section is intended only to serve as a very brief overview for the reader, but the topic could certainly be expanded into an article. See also ISM.) I'll try to address any issues that arise; unless the number of red links becomes a point of dispute, in which case I'll have to beg off. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I decided not to oppose as the issues I have are mainly presentational:

• The long table of contents looks slightly awkward to me, perhaps an expanded lead and/or a picture will help balance out the top of the page.
  • I simplified the ToC by moving the section names into the table headers. Not sure if that's the best approach, but it seemed to do the job. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• More picures down the rhs would be nice (similar to the layout of List of dinosaurs).
  • A bunch of chemical images were added along the right margin. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I know it's stated in the intro, but I'm always uncomfortable when I see a blank space in a field, as with the Ions column, as it simply looks like it could be missing information. Perhaps a dash (as used in some instances in the molecule column) would be better?
  • Okay, a plethora of dashes were inserted. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• It would be nice if the table widths are standardised.
  • I used fixed "em" widths for the column headers. It seemed to help, although the tables are much wider now. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I personally don't have a problem with the number of red links, but I'm aware that I'm more forgiving on this than the majority of other FLC reviewers.

-- CheekyMonkey 14:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Not much I can do about the red links for the moment. Hopefully they'll be filled in at a later date by some chemistry experts. If that is the only reason this fails I can live with it. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks, I think the list looks a lot better. The lead looks a little short, but as you say it's a well defined list and I think the 2 sentences are suffient. CheekyMonkey 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Would it also be possible to list the abundance of some of the more common molecules and elements? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe the abundance of molecules varies quite a bit depending on the conditions. Abundance of elements probably deserves its own article and would be out of scope here. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - well done! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Come on people! Why so little support? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Artaxiad 12:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support very nice!! --Donar Reiskoffer 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)