Wikipedia:Peer review/Makemake (dwarf planet)/archive1

Makemake (dwarf planet) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently become a Good Article and I would like to see what changes are needed for it to reach FA status. For comparison, please see Eris (dwarf planet), a featured article on a similar body.

Thanks, Serendi ^pod ous 22:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Serendi - just wondering if you are going to get this up to code before scattered disc? If so, I'll be willing to help with this article as well. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Depends on the outcome of this peer review. It might not be possible to get this article up to FA yet. But hey anything you think you can do. :) Serendi ^pod ous 07:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting it for FAC would give more feedback about what's missing to be a FA. Nergaal (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also a lot of complaints about why issue X wasn't sorted out during peer review. :-) I've gone through too many of these things not to go in prepared. Serendi ^pod ous 08:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Current refs 2 and 4 have their publisher and author information in the weblink. They should be listed outside the weblink for easier understanding.
- Current ref 20 has no publisher information. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
- Current ref 27 (http://www.gsmt.noao.edu/gsmt_swg/SWG_Apr03/The_Kuiper_Belt.pdf) is lacking a publisher. Also, is the author someone who makes the source reliable?
- Same for current ref 28 http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/kb/kb-classical.html
- And same for current ref 30 http://www.oca.eu/morby/stuff/NATURE.pdf

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I did some quick copyediting, and two suggestions: move "Orbit" before "Physical characteristics"... that's the way it is at Eris. I recommend keeping this consistent between articles. Also, I'd recommend moving "Classification" to right after "Discovery"; that's where it is at Eris, and it seems pretty logical to keep this information near the beginning. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cm:

{{±}} does not work right in IE7. Nergaal (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ref 6 should be put in a better format. Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I switch over to IE I can see it. Not sure if I have a different version of IE. I suppose I could put the note in "note" format, but it seemed kinda silly to do it when there was just one note. Serendi ^pod ous 21:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to ref6: I meant something like: x,y,z... said this and others said that
*x: full ref of the paper by x. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't ref refs, so I'd have to switch to note format. Serendi ^pod ous 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant something like what is now. Nergaal (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added Notes section. Ruslik (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive PR and start a FAC? Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's ready.Serendi ^pod ous 22:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about no significant comments in a week? Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK; so assuming no new comments we close it on Friday. Serendi ^pod ous 07:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't really be around to help, but ok. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I standardized all the refs. The only missing thing is that {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}} seem to have different ways to display date inputs when it is xxxx-xx-xx type. Also, seem to miss in some points and Sandy will surely b.../have something to say about it. Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're willing to listen to what Sandy has to say, we can close this now. Serendi ^pod ous 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! I'd rather work on some suggestions. Let's go with the FAC :D Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]