Talk:Makemake/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Makemake (dwarf planet)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is part of the Solar System featured topic, and needs to reach GA for the topic to remain valid. Much work has gone into bringing the article up to code, and I think it passes now.  Serendi pod ous  10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be of GA quality. It is well referenced, correctly written and deals with an interesting and scientific topic. It appears to be more than passable. J.T Pearson (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Review
I've done some copyediting, and I found some minor issues. Here are some suggestions for improvement: Overall, well done. You'll have seven days to address these concerns. Nikki 311  00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unlike Pluto or Eris, Makemake shows little evidence of nitrogen ice on its surface, suggesting that its supply of nitrogen has somehow been depleted over the age of the Solar System. Although evidence exists for the presence of nitrogen ice on its surface, at least mixed with other substances, there is nowhere near the same level of nitrogen as exists on Pluto, where it comprises more than 98 percent of the crust." - I know the point that you are trying to achieve here, but it sounds a little contradicting the way it is written 9see bold). How about rewording to --> "Although evidence exists for the presence of nitrogen ice on its surface, at least mixed with other substances, there is nowhere near the same level of nitrogen as exists on Pluto, where it comprises more than 98 percent of the crust." The lack of nitrogen ice suggests that its supply of nitrogen has somehow been depleted over the age of the Solar System."
 * "Makemake is currently at a distance of 52 AU from the Sun" - try to avoid time dependent statements. Say "as of 2008" (or whatever is appropriate) here.
 * "are likely to be included in the near future" - time dependent. I think the problem would be solved by simply removing "in the near future", but if you can think of a better solution, that's cool too.
 * I've addressed your concerns. Are there any others you think should be dealt with?  Serendi pod ous  06:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Looks good. Pass. Nikki  311  21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)