Talk:Space weathering

Good Article nomination On Hold
I need to check this article out with Scientific citation guidelines. While I'm doing this, if some dedicated editors could go over it carefully, word by word looking for terms that may need to be wikilinked (that is, terms that might puzzle a non-science person), then that would be a Good Thing.

--Ling.Nut 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Added "on hold" template to this page. What I see here is insufficient citation as well as insufficient wikilinking. I see a need for terms like "micrometeorites" and "high energy particles" to be linked or explained (Agglutinates was nicely done, just as an example). I'd also wikilink all element names (hydrogen, helium, etc.) and where you have a red link (nanophase iron, for example), either create a stub to explain it or else put an explanation into the article.

There is some need for more compelling prose, it's a little dense at times. It's not horrible, overal it's clearer and better organized than Moon, but there are some places where my eyes start to cross.

Also, what's the significance of the conundrum of the spectra of asteroids not matching the meteorites? From the text, it appears that maybe this is evidence of some kind of space weathering, but it is not clear to me...(and it's unsourced) There are also no sources for the history section.

Just some things I see. Montanabw 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 28, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

I've delisted list page from the GA list for a couple of reasons.
 * 1) While there are some inline-citations, there aren't enough to meet the current good article criteria. Note that this aspect of the criteria has been expanded a few times since the start of the GA process, and this article may have been passed when an older version of the criteria was in place.
 * 2) There are a few areas where the writing is not quite up to the GA standard. This is a difficult criteria to achieve and to review, but here are some examples:
 * The second paragraph of the History section starts three different sentences with the same word.
 * Semi-colon delimited lists have been used in a couple of places. These should be avoided in preference to expanding the lists into a few well flowing sentences.

Once these issues have been addressed, I suggest the article be taken to peer review and then re-nominated. --jwandersTalk 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It feels like the are sections missing that would detail the processes of space weathering listed in the lead.