Wikipedia:Peer review/Outer space/archive1

Outer space
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article is being listed for peer review because I think it is in need of some independent input to find out what is required to bring it up to a GA rating or better. The page is now mostly cited and I think it is in decent condition. However, the subject is broad so please suggest any appropriate additions. The article includes information on space travel, but only in a summary style as the topic is covered more broadly elsewhere. Please could you check it for style issues, grammatical flaws, and obvious factual errors?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't overlink "Kelvin" in the lead.
 * "that air had weight " weight or mass?
 * "brother in law" should be hyphenated.
 * "In 1640, he demonstrated " and "In 1650, German scientist ..." come before "In the 15th century...", seems a little odd.
 * The last represented a change of theme, so it needed to jump back in history a little. I modified it slightly to communicate this.
 * " Michelson-Morley experiment" should be an en-dash, not a hyphen.
 * "Not to scale" in the image caption should be followed by a full stop.
 * Andromeda galaxy -> Galaxy.
 * Describe what IUPAC is before you use the abbreviation.
 * Is it "universe" or "Universe"?
 * Don't overlink photon.
 * Suggest you link eV (since you link Pa, K etc).
 * "spacesuit" caption needs a full stop.
 * Is it "space suit" or "spacesuit"?
 * SpaceShipOne caption needs a full stop.
 * Don't think you need to link "Density" in the "Boundary" section.
 * Is the second of those three boundary definitions really a "scientific" one?
 * "kilometres. ... kilometers " is this article written in Brit Eng or US Eng?
 * "This treaty covers " just "It covers..." would be better for me.
 * "As of January 1, 2008 the " it's now April 2012, any updates?
 * You link USSR, USA and UK but not Brazil, Zaire etc. which is a little odd to me given the latter are far more unusual than the former.
 * " (See circular motion.) " yuck, if you want a footnote, make it a footnote, if you can't find a more elegant way of linking that article into the prose.
 * "orbit" is not linked the first time here.
 * More "kilometres " here.
 * "about 1.5 million km" you've used "kilometre" all the way up to this point in this section...
 * Is it " low-Earth orbit" or " low earth orbit"?
 * And you link it twice.
 * And you kind of introduce the concept the second time round... consider reordering.
 * Are they "Van Allen radiation belts" or "Van Allen Belts"?
 * I didn't realise that pc was an abbreivation of parsec, perhaps you could include that (pc)...
 * A lot of the see also's may already be linked in the main article so they can go.
 * Don't mix date formats in the refs, pick one and stick with it.
 * If you are referring to the access dates, these are allowed to be in YYYY-MM-DD format per MOS:DATEUNIFY.
 * Ref 26 - "g/cm^3" can't we use a superscript here rather than ^?
 * First external link "Intergalactic Space, Natural History, Feb 1998" is there anything particular about this particular webpage that couldn't just be incorporated as an in-line reference?
 * It isn't needed as a reference.
 * I've implemented nearly all of your suggestions. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)