Wikipedia:Peer review/Planet/archive2

Needs serious work. Just wondering what sort of work it needed. Serendipodous 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think the organization is fine and it has good content. Here's a few suggestions that I hope are of some use.

A number of sections have no citations. I usually like to see about one per paragraph or more, but that's just a personal heuristic.
There appear to be many redundant links. (C.f. WP:MoS#Wikilinking.) Jupiter, for example, is linked 8 times, and not always consistently. Probably only 2-3 links to Jupiter are necessary.
Mixed British English and American English. Example: centre and center.
A reader may be puzzled by this sentence: "There was particular disagreement over whether round objects that existed in belts, and large deuterium fusing objects should qualify." It might be clearer if it said "debris disks" and put a hyphen between deuterium and fusing.
"Dynamic characteristics" doesn't mention the differing orbital elements, such as ellipticity or inclination. The section could also use an illustration or two with examples of some attributes.
The initial list of planets in the "Within the Solar System" also gives the number of moons. This is redundant with the data in the "Planetary attributes" table, so perhaps the list should only show the planets?
I think that if you put a definition at the start of the "Beyond the Solar System" section, the table of contents should properly indent the sub-sections.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]