Wikipedia:Peer review/Solar System/archive4

Solar System edit

Modifications made as per previous peer reviews. Please let me know what you think. Also, could someone please tell me why ref #40 isn't working? Thanks. Serendipodous 10:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number 40 seems fine. I think I see link spam :O #See also is a bit large. When placing refernces in the form of <ref> or {{ref}} - whatever you use, I haven't checked - when it is being used after a period, there should be no space after the period and then cite the quote. So: "[...] and then it exploded.<ref>Blah blah blah</ref>. Heading "Discovery and Exploration" should be renamed to "Discovery and exploration". "See main article: extrasolar planet" should be below the heading "Extrasolar planetary systems" by using template {{main}}. Heading "The heliopause" should be renamed to Heliopause per WP:MOSHEAD and mentioned above. Heading "The scattered disc" should be renamed to "Scattered disc". Things like "see also: [Article]" shouldn't be at the bottom of the paragraph, but at the top using template {{main}}. Mainly formatting issues. Regards, Iola k ana|^T 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Duly edited :-) Not sure about the link spam though; all the sites seem reputable to me, but then maybe I'm just naively trusting...:-). Serendipodous 21:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest SciAm (Scientific American) had a nice article on planetary satellites in the solar system. They sub-divide the satellites into regular and irregular, with most of the main satellites being regular and all the smaller ones being irregular. They also pointed out that many new irregular satellites are still being discovered, so the counts on this page are definitely subject to change. You might want to take a look at that article for some interesting material. It also has some good references listed at the end. (see also http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard/satellites/) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Added it to my references. It will be a useful site to check on to see if the page needs updating. I'm a bit cash-poor at present but I'll probably check out SciAm anyway :-)Serendipodous 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be in the local library. — RJH (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Having the "Formation and evolution of the solar system" be a one-line entry in italics at the top of the article doesn't seem to be doing it justice. I thought there used to be a section on the origin, but now it seems to have vanished. It would be beneficial to have a two paragraph summary of the system origin somewhere on the page. (2) Also you might make a brief mention of possible stellar encounters with the Oort cloud.[1] The comet section doesn't appear to make mention of perturbations as a source of orbital displacement. (3) Oh yeah, one more thing--per the WP style guide, the external links section should be at the very end. — RJH (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]