Wikipedia:Peer review/Definition of planet/archive2

This article was originally featured, and I have been engaged in an intense overhaul to try and get it back to feature quality. However, I have hit an unexpected brick wall. In trying to source the "History" section, I have found that, contrary to popular belief (and indeed the planet and planets in astrology articles, which I cowrote and will need to redraft) the ancient Greeks did not refer to "seven planets" (including the Sun and the Moon) but to five, excluding them. So what I need to figure out now is how the "seven planet" concept originated and where it came from. I just haven't been able to figure it out yet. Serendipodous 11:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Overall a fine article. Nice job! Here are a few comments on some minor issues that may be of use:
 * I don't see the 5 planets vs. 7 as a major issue; sometimes history is just ambiguous with little possibility of resolution. The current discussion seems more than sufficient.
 * It doesn't seem appropriate that a new section (Seven planets) begins with "However".
 * Citation before punctuation: "[16].
 * The first use of "Bode's law" has a lower-case 'L', but the word "Law" in the next sentence is capitalized. In the third sentence of the paragraph, it is written "Bode's Law". Can this be made more consistent?
 * "minor planets", or "small planets", should have the commas inside the parentheses, I believe.
 * Can the "Acceptance of the definition" section be broken into smaller paragraphs for easier reading? Also can the footnote in that section (and the following sections) be configured as a linked footnote using the Ref_label template. (See Nature, for example.)
 * Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great suggestions! I knew there had to be a way to do the "Notes" thing; I just didn't have a clue what it was. And thanks for the comment about history sometimes just being ambiguous. I needed that; it was beginning to invert my brain.Serendipodous 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)