Wikipedia:Peer review/Triton (moon)/archive1

Triton (moon)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has just achieved GA and I was wondering what it would require to reach FA.

Thanks,

Serendi^podous 11:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by RJH

Since the first photos came out, I'd always thought that was one weird-looking moon. Apart from needing a few minor edits and some polishing up of the text though, the article seems in pretty good shape. Here's a few comments:

Some of the paragraphs are too brief. Could be expanded or merged?
There's a slight ambiguity in the sentence, "The core makes up two-thirds of the total mass of Triton, which is the fourth largest of any planetary moon in the Solar System..." It should clarify that you mean the total mass rather than comparing the core's of the moons.
The last paragraph of "Orbit and rotation" seems contradictory. First it states that the circular orbit is caused by tidal deceleration, then it say tides alone are not capable of such a feat. So is one of these in error, or should the first say "partially caused"? Also, shouldn't it mention what else could have caused the circularization? Or at least, "we don't know"?
What's a hexagonal beta crystal? As in "hexagonal beta crystalline state". Hexagonal crystal system doesn't seem to cover it.
There are a couple of citations that consist of a bare wikilink and some text. It would be good if they were formatted consistently.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph lengths reworked. Hope that helped.

The ambiguous sentence refers to the mass of the core; unfortunately, it is not clear whether the sentence refers to the absolute mass or to the ratio between the mass of the core and the mass of the moon, and since I can't check the source, I'll have to remove it.

I've given my best shot at interpreting the source of the circular orbit claim, but it's a bit above my head.

RE: alpha/beta, the source's abstract doesn't mention alpha or beta, just cubic and hexagonal, so I think alpha/beta can be removed.

Bad refs now fixed I think. Serendi^podous 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]