Wikipedia:Peer review/Scattered disc/archive1

Scattered disc

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to raise it to FA level and was wondering what else was needed.

Thanks, Serendi^podous 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Try to make sure that all your websites/etc have publisher and last access dates, at the very least. Authors/etc. when known should be listed also.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from RJH (talk)

Here's a few notes that I hope are of some use:

• The article needs a deep copy edit to polish it up, especially in the lead. Many parts are somewhat awkward reads, at least to me.
• "capable of being gravitationally affected by the planet Neptune," is a little vague as there is no cut-off point to Neptune's gravity. If it instead said something about Neptune being the dominant gravitational influence, that may be clearer.
• Shouldn't the "Observations" section be called "Discovery"? It mentions nothing beyond basic classification. Otherwise, perhaps that section could discuss the type of technology needed to spot these objects. It could also mention apparent magnitudes and compare this to observational limitations of current technology.
• Seems like "process would be gradual" should be "process was gradual"
  • "One hypothesis is that this process took a few billion years;[15] a second hypothesis posits that the scattering took place on a shorter timescale." I'm not clear how this relates to the text that follows. There is only one model suggested, so why does it matter how long it took? Could this be clarified? Thanks.—RJH (talk)
  • I tweaked this sentence to say theory as GG suggested, but I think the time frame matters, because one theory says it took 15 billion years, and the other took a shorter period of time. I think we need a reference for the second one, if it is not already there. But that's just my spitballing. --Meldshal42? 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Please explain plutinos and twotinos where they are used in the context, rather than relying on the user to drill down.
• What are "highly eccentric and inclined orbits", "mildly-elliptical", "medium and high eccentricities" and "relatively dynamically stable"? They are vague, especially the last which is also jargon. Also, most readers won't recognize the meaning of "in the a > 30 AU region". It will just look like 'a' typo to many readers.
• The question that was not quite answered for me by this article is: why are there separate categories for the scattered disk and kuiper belt? It seems a purely arbitrary distinction, but is there a good reason to use that terminology? Do they come from statistical clustering on inclination/eccentricity charts? Maybe I missed it in the article...
• A little variation from "believed" would be good, just for variety.

Thank you. Hope I didn't offend; this was just intended as a constructive critique.—RJH (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple more items I noticed after another go-through:

:* Please clarify what is meant by "relatively thick torus of space". I probably know what you intended, but the wording may be misleading to some.

• "...knocked inwards from the Kuiper belt rather than outwards..." I assume this isn't meant literally? I.e. through collisions. Again I probably known what you meant, but I may be wrong.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Geometry guy

I agree with the need for a deep copyedit, and will try to contribute myself to this. One other issue which struck me was the Formation section, where there is a brief paragraph on the prevailing view, and extensive discussion of one alternative view. That's not encyclopedic! Geometry guy 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure which is which. Serendi^podous 05:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

::It could be OR to say then. Maybe "one theory" and "another theory" would be better. Geometry guy 08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Meldshal42? 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)