Wikipedia:Peer review/Planet X/archive1

Planet X

• 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through a merger and I need to make sure it makes sense, or if there are any missing bits that should be included. Also, I want to know how close it is to GA status.

Thanks, Serendi^podous 10:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. This generally seems quite well done and I think it would probably pass GA with a few tweaks.

• Per WP:MOS#Images, there should be an image in the upper right corner of the article if at all possible: Start an article with a right-aligned lead image. Of the images in the article, I like the comparison of TNOs best, but can understand how it might be misleading as an image as these are not (now) planets. I also like Image:Outersolarsystem objectpositions labels comp.png as a lead image.
• While the article is generally well-referenced, there are a few statements that need a ref, such as was far too small to account for the discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus. If there was a Planet X, it was not Pluto. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• This image needs a fair use rationale: Image:Pluto discovery plates.png
• There are several very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded, if possible.

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 _><>°^° 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Overall it seems fine. Here's a few comments that I hope are helpful:

• The second sentence in the lead seems too long. Can it be split?
• The flow of the lead section seems backwards. I think the second paragraph should be inserted after the first sentence, with the "Pluto was considered..." moved down to a second paragraph.
• "After the discovery of Neptune, however, there still were some slight discrepancies in those orbits, and also in the orbit of Neptune itself." This uses a plural "those orbits". To which orbit(s) besides Uranus does this refer (since Neptune is already mentioned)?
• "summarily handed the job of locating the world" -> probably meant "planet" here, as "world" often refers to the Earth.
• The paragraph on "Tombaugh's task" should clarify that the images were take of matching locations on the sky. Only by aligning the plates does the comparitor work. Also I think "task was to systematically image" may read better than "task was systematically to image".
• The paragraph that begins "Once found, Pluto's faintness and lack..." doesn't quite work for me. The second sentence seems to contradict the first; a planet with a diameter of 9,000 km is much larger than Mars. Also, any object with mass will perturb a planet. You might want to clarify what you mean.
• The statement that "they have not cleared the neighborhood of their orbits" should probably be explained.
• "...currently set in elongated orbit..." is missing an "an".

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I've never been asked to split an infinitive before. How racy :-). I've had a go at editing the lead, but the way it's turned out makes me think that the article should now go back to Planet X. Serendi^podous 08:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Planets beyond Neptune explains the article purpose better. Planet X sounds like a movie title. =) —RJH (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Review by Ruslik: This is generally a good article.

1) In the last section the hypothetical Mars-like object at 60 AU should be mentioned (see [1]). This idea has been largely abandoned by now. However 10 years ago it looked quite plausible.

I'd need to know why it's been abandoned. Serendi^podous 09:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is explained in Lykawka et al., 2008 (ref35)—the observed distribution of TNOs is different from one that follows from the model. Ruslik (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Lykawka's article, only the abstract. Serendi^podous 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The arXiv full text PDF should be freely available (arXiv:0712.2198). ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

2) I think paper written by C. Tombaugh needs to be cited.

3) Reguarding various mass and radius estimates of Pluto these papers may be helpful: [2], [3], [4].

Ruslik (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)