Wikipedia:Peer review/Planetary habitability/archive1

Planetary habitability[edit]

As good a lay science overview as you'll find on this topic. Looking for more feedback in the hopes of an FA nom. Anything forgotten or not mentioned? Marskell 12:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick tip, seperate the book- and online references from the regular external links and put the references (both book and online) under a ==References== header and the "regular links" under ==External links==. I'll try to read it in more detail later. - 131.211.51.34 09:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually all the links under References and External Links were used in the article. I did as you suggest split the two headers. Marskell 09:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to why you ignored the seminal work, "Habitable Planets for Man" by Stephan H. Dole, published in 1964? I know it's probably a little dated now, but it covered the subject in excellent detail. — RJH 16:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I live in the Middle East and have absolutely no library access. On-line PDFs, or books I stumble across, are as far as I can go. By all means, if you have anything from that source to add go to talk there or here or simply be bold and add it—particularly, if there is an unaddressed topic I would like to know. It occured to me today, for instance, I should probably address gravity and habitability.
- I would, of course, be a little leery of adding stats from 1964 as so much has changed (estimates of our sun's HZ, attitude toward Red Dwarfs, knowledge of exoplanets which was of course non-existent then). The research that appears "seminal" at this point, is James Kasting's many many papers and the Turnbull & Tarter HabCat selection criteria. Marskell 17:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and fixed the captions (no italics and rewrote the first one). Also, links are not supposed to be part of the section title; rather, use the template below. I've fixed this in the article, though.

{{main|MainArticleGoesHere}} becomes

. HereToHelp 19:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, main article is better, TY. I more or less reverted the caption though, sorry--plz no "many," "some" theories etc. These aren't used in the article (if they are I suggest they go). Also, I'm ambivalent about removing italics. This image means this and subsequently a quote is pulled from the text. One or the other should be italicized. Marskell 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]