Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Neptune/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

It's been a while since Neptune's last peer review and it is currently classified as an A-class article. I've decided to help it become a Featured Article and, according to the description of what an A-class article is, a peer review is a good way to do that. I will add this to my watchlist and address comments as soon as I can. — Pious7TalkContribs 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJH

[edit]

Here's a few brief comments that I hope are of some use.

  • What does "(?)≫(?) 100 kPa : is asked the pressure at the cloud level" mean in the infobox?
  • The lead section has a paragraph about pluto, but this is not mentioned elsewhere in the text. The lead should really be a summary of the article, so I think this should be moved to a section on the planet's orbit.
  • Too much of the text is lacking references for me to consider this an A-class article. There are also a lot of "citation needed" tags.
  • As a suggestion, for consistency and completeness reasons please organize this page along the lines of the FA'd planet articles: Mercury (planet), Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter. Thus, for example, I'd move the Exploration of Neptune section down below the Appearance and Visibility section (and remove the "of Neptune"). There should also be a "Orbit and rotation" section", etc.
  • The Illustration of the "Internal structure of Neptune" doesn't belong in the "Naming" section. I think an internal structure section is definitely needed.
  • The "Magnetic field" section is so short that it could be merged. How is the magnetic field being generated? You could also mention something about the auroras.
  • The "Voyager flyby" section should be merged with the Exploration section.
  • Doesn't Neptune have the largest Hill radius in the Solar System? (Permitting a stable orbit for a moon at a distance of 48 million km, or 0.3 A.U.; the largest semi-major axis of any moon in the Solar System, if my eyes don't deceive me. :)
  • The article should be at least as complete as the SolStation and world book articles on the topic.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Comments

[edit]