Wikipedia:Peer review/Dwarf planet/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Here are some thoughts:
- Done I'd recommend getting it through GA before trying for FA. I suspect the writing isn't "brilliant" enough for FA yet.
- Done The first sentence is long and confusing. Maybe you could put it in simpler terms? For example, instead of "it assumes hydrostatic equilibrium (that is, a near-spherical shape)" you could say "it assumes a near-spherical shape," and then discuss the details later.
- Done It looks like there are a few places you could tighten up the wording. For example, "The category dwarf planet is not a subset of the category planet, but a separate category altogether; that is to say, a dwarf planet is not a planet" could be "A dwarf planet is not a planet."
- Done This sentence is awkward: "it became clear that they all would either have to be called planets or Pluto would have to be reclassified." But I couldn't figure out how to reword it myself.
- Done Maybe instead of the massive IAU quote in [[Dwarf planet#History of the name|]], you could paraphrase. That way you could avoid awkward stuff like the  and the horizontal line.
- Not sure. I suggest combing the article for repetitive wording. For example, "This concept is combined with a concept of..."
- Cannot find what you are referring to. Can you be a bit specific?Nergaal
(talk) 12:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done That particular sentence is under Dwarf planet#Orbital dominance. There are a couple cases where a word is repeated twice in two sentences. For example, can this sentence be reworded to be less repetitive? "There are several other theories that try to differentiate between planets and dwarf planets, but the current definition of what constitutes a planet uses this concept." I don't know if you can avoid saying "planet" twice, but maybe you can avoid the third use. Here's another one: "Vesta, however, appears to deviate from hydrostatic equilibrium only because of a large impact which occurred after Vesta solidified" Vesta Vesta ;-) So I suggest you give the whole article a reading looking specifically for cases of repetitive wording. delldot talk 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done The article needs more inline citations, e.g. anywhere you put a number. I'm more compulsive about this than a lot of people are, but it's helpful especially with numbers because it's really easy and common for vandals to come along and change a number in a plausible way, so it makes it easier for vandal whackers if there's a quick way for them to check.
- Done [[Pluto prototype|remains nameless]] is an easter egg link.
- Done There are a lot of duplicate links, e.g. hydrostatic equillibrium is linked a bunch of times.
- Done The article has some stuff like ~.78, which should be turned to ~0.78 per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Decimal points, due to how easy it is to mistake it for ~78. That section also talks about keeping the same number of sig figs within a list, though in some of the tables that probably wouldn't be a good idea (e.g. where you have 95.2 and 0.00015 in the same table). But there'd be nothing wrong with like 42.0 in a table with other numbers like 6.2.
- Done This is just me being extremely picky, but some of the ref tags come after the punctuation and some come before. Either one is OK by the MOS (Go for after! Go for after! Ahem, sorry, bit of a personal preference there). I'm also a little nuts about not having a space in front of the reference tag.
- Done I advocate for getting rid of phrases like "one should also note," which I don't think add anything and sound too much like commentary. Check out these exercises for other ways to get rid of unnecessary wording.
Sorry to be so picky, it really is a great article! Note that I know nothing about the subject, so this review can only have advice on the writing, not the facts. delldot on a public computer talk 11:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done Another minor thing - for your references that are just raw url's, you should go back and add information about author, date, title, publisher, and access date. If it's from a journal, you should provide a doi or link to the abstract if possible. delldot talk 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A couple more things:
- Done I think "et al.", being latin, should be italicized, you may want to check to be sure.
- Done Should the table labelled "Dwarf planets orbital attributes" be called "Dwarf planets' orbital attributes"?
- I hope I haven't done you a disservice by reviewing this without knowing anything about the topic; if others glance at this review, they might think it's been sufficiently reviewed and not bother. Is there a wikiproject you could bring this to the attention of? You could leave a note on the talk page, hopefully that would bring some people familiar with the topic. delldot talk 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- don't worry, the article will be reviewed during nominations anyways. Thanks for the tips, since I really needed some starting points. They were really helpful, and I will continue to work on them for the next few days. Nergaal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)