Wikipedia:Peer review/Earth/archive1

Earth

This article has undergone many changes since it was a failed FAC in July of last year. There's a few missing citations (more citations are definitely needed) and a bit of clean-up needed here and there, but it's starting to shape up into a decent summary-style article. Could you suggest what additional changes are needed to bring this essential article up to Featured Article quality? Thank you! — RJH (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What is Poetic Inspiration there for? It belongs in Wikiquote. WikiNew 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It was just added by a new contributor. I've removed it. — RJH (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

I come to this page as an avid reader of popular science books, not as a scientist. I am one of "those humanities people." I found this article informative and instructive. I had no trouble following it at all (not always true for the science articles here). Here are my suggestions:

• There are far too many passive constructions in this article, particularly in the lead.
• The "resulting in" structure appears too often. By placing the main topic of the sentence at the end of the sentence, it de-emphasizes the topic. Use this structure sparingly. Problematic ex:

The incorporation of smaller cells within larger ones resulted in the development of complex cells called eukaryotes. Cells within colonies became increasingly specialized, resulting in true multicellular organisms.

Fixed.

• Maybe you could add a series of pictures of the drifting continents to the "History" section?
  • I thought about something along those lines, but I didn't find the images all that appealing. I'll look some more.
• On my browser, there is a large white space between "History" and "Shape"? Can that be reduced? (Also between "Tectonic plates" and the text of the section.)
  • That appears to be caused by a collision between the very long infobox and the image in the Shape section when the browser is wide. I added in a break at the end of the history section, although this just moves the gap up to the end of the prior section. Problem is, when the image is shifted to the left it collides with the infobox on a narrow browser.
    • Oh. I know absolutely nothing about how to fix those problems. I can only say that, aesthetically, it looks unfinished. Awadewit 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Thank you.
• In the "Chemical composition" section, you reference Clarke. Might you add a phrase indicating what kind of expert he is so that reader knows why he or she should rely on his evidence?
• Although I remember my periodic table from high school, some people may not. Is it worth writing out the compounds in the "Chemical composition" section?
  • Yes.
• As you point out, for FA, the article will probably need more citations, particularly for statements such as some scientists believe that biospheres might be rare and The exploitation of non-renewable resources near the surface by human civilization has become a subject of significant controversy in modern environmentalism movements. There are also whole sections that lack any citations at all (there seems to be a rule of thumb of at least one citation per paragraph).
• Long-term climate alteration from enhancement of the greenhouse effect caused by the earth itself and human industrial carbon dioxide emissions is an increasing concern, the focus of intense study and debate. - this seems like a weak statement to me; why not quote from that International report that came out a few weeks ago?
  • Done.
• The "Orbit and rotation" and "Moon" sections seem like they should be placed further up the page. It is more related to the planet-wide discussion and not the humanity discussion they follow. That way, the "Human viewpoint" section can follow the other sections on humanity.
  • Done.
• The "Lexicography" section seems unnecessary to me.
  • Migrated to a separate Lexicography of Earth page and linked in the "See also" section. As a bonus it reduces the page size. But I'm expecting that at some point it will get transwikied. — RJH (talk)
• Can you suggest any further reading for the curious? Awadewit 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Awadewit, I'll do my best to address your concerns. — RJH (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)