Wikipedia:Peer review/Galaxy/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Galaxy)
This vital article has undergone considerable expansion and I think it has reached a level of quality where it is about ready to be a Featured Article candidate. But before moving forward I was hoping to get peer feedback to make sure it is ship-shape and sufficiently thorough. (This is primarily a summary-style article on the subject. I'm counting on the sub-article links to cover individual topics in more detail.) Your helpful comments would be much appreciated! Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- From the lede sentence: "...a massive, gravitationally bound system that consists of stars, an interstellar medium of gas and dust, and an unknown dark matter." Should that read "an unknown amount of dark matter"? I don't know enough about the physics to say definitely yes, but just grammatically it sounds like something is missing there. Even if the statement is scientifically valid, an English-speaking layperson will be somewhat confused by the phrasing. Fsotrain09 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fsotrain: The nature of the dark matter itself is unknown, but not its mass. I believe that is what the first sentence is attempting to get across. Would "an unknown form of dark matter" be better? — RJH (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Either that or "...and dark matter, an unknown substance." Some noun taking the adjective's modification besides the term itself. -Fsotrain09 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- We don't know that it is a substance (which I take to mean Baryons), so I'll go with "type". Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Either that or "...and dark matter, an unknown substance." Some noun taking the adjective's modification besides the term itself. -Fsotrain09 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fsotrain: The nature of the dark matter itself is unknown, but not its mass. I believe that is what the first sentence is attempting to get across. Would "an unknown form of dark matter" be better? — RJH (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks AndyZ, I've implemented most of your changes. I've always thought that adding in the date links for references seems excessive and nearly pointless, but they've also been added. — RJH (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)