Wikipedia:Peer review/Vulcanoid asteroid/archive1
Vulcanoid asteroid[edit]
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten it pretty much from scratch and I've reached the limit of what I can do on my own. I think I've got it to a reasonable standard but I'd like some ideas for improvement- particularly the lead, which I think is a bit patchy. I would like to push for good article status fairly soon.
Thanks, Reyk YO! 06:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting and seems pretty close to GA to me, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.
- According to WP:HEAD, History and Observation should be History and observation
- Done
- I would add details on their possible sizes (upper and lower limits) and perhaps most likely orbits to the lead
- Done
- Suggested copyedit to first two sentences The vulcanoids are a hypothetical population of asteroids that may orbit the sun in a dynamically stable zone within the orbit of the planet Mercury. They are named after the hypothetical planet Vulcan, whose existence was disproven in YEAR.
- Done
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. They should also be in numerical order.
- Mostly done- all the inline citations are now in numerical order and come after the punctuation. The mid-sentence citations I have left because putting them at the end of the sentence would imply that the sources for that sentence back up the whole sentence, rather than just a portion of it. The example given at Wikipedia:References does the same.
- Nice images (nice job making some of them too) However in File:Vulcanoidorbits.png the orbit labels are too small to read legibly on my monitor and the caption should make it clearer that the green disc is the region meant.
- Done. Thanks. I'm particularly happy with the way the first one came out.
- There are a few one or two sentence paragraphs that should probably be expanded or combined with others to improve flow.
- Done
- I would explain why the 2000 and 2002 attempts by Stern did not find anything.
- I can't find an explanation in any of the sources.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)