Talk:Extraterrestrial sky/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Wronkiew (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

First, let me say that the article is generally well written and I enjoyed reading it. However, because large sections of the article are unreferenced, and because of the presence of correctly applied cleanup tags, I am declining to promote the article. After the tags and the above issues are addressed, please re-nominate the article. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion if you think my assessment is too critical. Wronkiew (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well written (prose)
 * Inconsistent use of American vs. British spellings, most obvious is colour/color,
 * "Thus Phobos crosses the Martian skies nearly 12 times whilst Deimos crosses them just once." Whilst is not a commonly used word. Replace with "while".
 * "Venus as seen from Mars (when near the maximum elognation from the Sun of 31.7°) would have an apparent magnitude of about -3.2." Should be "elongation".
 * "It is probable that the planet's rings can't be seen from its surface, as they are very thin and dark." Expand or avoid contractions. Fix all occurrences in the article.
 * "Pluto, accompanied by its largest moon Charon, orbits the sun at a distance usually outside the orbit of Neptune except for a twenty-year period in each orbit." Don't anthropomorphize Pluto.
 * " Since the inner moons of Saturn are all in synchronous rotation, the planet always appears in the same spot in their skies." The word "since" implies that one of these things happened after the other. Replace with "because".
 * "Iapetus achieves 0.20°, which is more than any of the outer moons can claim ." Moons don't claim things, people do.
 * Well written (MoS)
 * Lead
 * Cut the second paragraph from the lead, maybe move it to the talk page.
 * The lead section does not adequately introduce the article. If the rest of the article is removed, the lead should stand alone as a concise version of it. As it is, the lead only defines the title and gives a general explanation of why the sky on a different planet might be different. The second paragraph does include a list of the types of objects which will appear in the later sections, but only to explain the development of the article, which is not important information for the intended readers. There should be some mention of both the common features of and differences between the skies on the various objects which will appear in the article. You could separate them into broad categories: terrestrial planets, gas giants, airless rocks, moons, and extrasolar objects. Odd and interesting objects like Titan, 3200 Phaethon, and Mars should also merit a mention.
 * The relationship between the chemical composition and the color of the sky needs to be properly explained in the article.
 * Layout
 * Add "see also" links to each section or subsection to a relevant article on that planet.
 * Jargon
 * Define "albedo" on first use
 * Tidal locking is properly explained in "Pluto", but synchonous rotation, a similar concept, is not explained in the earlier section on Jupiter's moons.
 * Words to avoid
 * There are several uses of the problematic adjective "spectacular".
 * List incorporation
 * Some tables have not been adequately turned into prose. One example is "The skies of Mars' moons".
 * References
 * Many paragraphs do not reference a source at all, and there are no general sources for the article which could be used to verify unreferenced details.
 * Citations
 * All measurements of magnitudes, intensities, sizes, angles, colors, orbital periods, and rotation periods must have inline citations at the end of the sentence.
 * Original research
 * There are several assertions made in this article which are either unreferenced and difficult to verify or original research. Some examples:
 * "The zodiacal light is probably more prominent than it is from Earth."
 * "For many years, the sky on Mars was thought to be more pinkish than it is now believed to be."
 * "From the moons of Jupiter, solar eclipses caused by the Galilean satellites would be spectacular, as an observer would see the circular shadow of the eclipsing moon travel across Jupiter's face." Also, this one is confusingly worded and may not even be correct.
 * Detail
 * Delete the section about apparent magnitude. The existing wikilink is sufficient to explain the concept.
 * Original research
 * There are several assertions made in this article which are either unreferenced and difficult to verify or original research. Some examples:
 * "The zodiacal light is probably more prominent than it is from Earth."
 * "For many years, the sky on Mars was thought to be more pinkish than it is now believed to be."
 * "From the moons of Jupiter, solar eclipses caused by the Galilean satellites would be spectacular, as an observer would see the circular shadow of the eclipsing moon travel across Jupiter's face." Also, this one is confusingly worded and may not even be correct.
 * Detail
 * Delete the section about apparent magnitude. The existing wikilink is sufficient to explain the concept.