Wikipedia:Peer review/Neptune/archive2

Neptune
Archive 1

It's been a while since Neptune's last peer review and it is currently classified as an A-class article. I've decided to help it become a Featured Article and, according to the description of what an A-class article is, a peer review is a good way to do that. I will add this to my watchlist and address comments as soon as I can. — Pious7Talk Contribs 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RJH
Here's a few brief comments that I hope are of some use. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What does "(?)≫(?) 100 kPa : is asked the pressure at the cloud level" mean in the infobox?
 * ✅. I removed the (?)s, cleaned it up, and tagged it for a citation needed as I couldn't find a source for it when I searched. — Pious7Talk Contribs 13:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead section has a paragraph about pluto, but this is not mentioned elsewhere in the text. The lead should really be a summary of the article, so I think this should be moved to a section on the planet's orbit.
 * ✅ — Pious7Talk Contribs 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Too much of the text is lacking references for me to consider this an A-class article. There are also a lot of "citation needed" tags.
 * As a suggestion, for consistency and completeness reasons please organize this page along the lines of the FA'd planet articles: Mercury (planet), Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter. Thus, for example, I'd move the Exploration of Neptune section down below the Appearance and Visibility section (and remove the "of Neptune"). There should also be a "Orbit and rotation" section", etc.
 * I've reorganized it, but it still needs to be adjusted a little due to the new structure. — Pious7Talk Contribs 21:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've cleaned up a lot of the sections to make it organized and named better. — <b style="color:blue;">Pious7</b><sub style="color:green;">Talk <sup style="color:purple;">Contribs 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Illustration of the "Internal structure of Neptune" doesn't belong in the "Naming" section. I think an internal structure section is definitely needed.
 * ✅. Someone else already moved the image before I read your comments today. I split an internal structure section from the composition section. — <b style="color:blue;">Pious7</b><sub style="color:green;">Talk <sup style="color:purple;">Contribs 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Magnetic field" section is so short that it could be merged. How is the magnetic field being generated? You could also mention something about the auroras.
 * ✅, merged into another section. — <b style="color:blue;">Pious7</b><sub style="color:green;">Talk <sup style="color:purple;">Contribs 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Voyager flyby" section should be merged with the Exploration section.
 * ✅ — <b style="color:blue;">Pious7</b><sub style="color:green;">Talk <sup style="color:purple;">Contribs 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't Neptune have the largest Hill radius in the Solar System? (Permitting a stable orbit for a moon at a distance of 48 million km, or 0.3 A.U.; the largest semi-major axis of any moon in the Solar System, if my eyes don't deceive me. :)
 * The article should be at least as complete as the SolStation and world book articles on the topic.

Other Comments

 * Under the naming section for India, the link Vedic is vague. Probably need a more procise link.  Thanks, CarpD 4/25/07.
 * ✅ — <b style="color:blue;">Pious7</b><sub style="color:green;">Talk <sup style="color:purple;">Contribs 20:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, did not know which link would suite best. Thanks, CarpD 4/26/07.


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)