Wikipedia:Peer review/Near-Earth object/archive1

Near-Earth object
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I did a lot of work improving this article, adding content on every relevant aspect, checking every source and adding several new ones, and taking into account every MoS rule I'm aware of. Still, as my last involvement in a Featured Article nomination was years ago, I wonder whether I missed any significant aspect.

Thanks, Rontombontom (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to provide a few thoughts and have requested further comments from someone more versed in the science of this subject than I. This seems like an important and interesting topic that should be a Featured Article at some point soon. If I have mentioned something that has already been addressed I apologize.


 * I added the Feature article tools template to the article talkpage, its helpful for checking various issues. Checking the external links a few are weak and one or more may not be functioning properly, but none look dead. Please check again before submitting this to FAC. I ran citation bot and it did a few minor corrections.
 * Make sure spelling and word structure follows either American or British English standards consistently. I see a couple examples of where this may not be uniform.
 * In articles I have worked on regarding science, metric measurements should be prominent with Imperial units secondary. Seek uniformity on this matter if this has not been followed. See Manual of Style/Dates and numbers for further guidance.
 * Units of measurement should be followed by a non-breaking space, written as Prefer if convert template is used as this makes it unnecessary in most instances. See Template:Convert.
 * Watch for Overlinking I see Asteroid is linked twice in the introduction alone. I think the rule is links can appear once in the introduction and one more time in the body of the article. See Manual of Style/Linking.
 * Consider changing section 3.1 from Near-Earth asteroids to simply Asteroids and 3.3 Near-Earth comets to Comets to avoid repeating the article title in the headings and subheadings. Also, a reconsideration of the name of the sections titled "Risk" might be needed.

The lead looks good but make sure it does not discuss material not included in the article and just gives a brief overview; it appears to be following this convention. If taken to FAC ping me and I'll be glad to help with any copyediting issues that might come up.--MONGO 13:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)