Wikipedia:Peer review/Halley's Comet/archive1

Halley's Comet

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because while I think I've patched up most of the major holes, I would like it checked for scientific accuracy and also any stylistic or similar issues before taking it to FAC

Thanks, Serendi ^pod ous 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Åkebråke:

"These studies showed that the comet's dynamics follow a simple area-preserving map similar to the standard map. Its dynamics were shown to be chaotic and unpredictable on long timescales. Halley's projected lifetime, as determined by differential escape, could be as high as 10 million years."

Both two links are impossible to understand for a layperson. What does "differential escape" mean?

Åkebråke (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really needed, so I removed it. Serendi ^pod ous 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and certainly broad in coverage. Since I'm not a scientist, I can't speak with authority about the astronomy, though the meaning seems clear enough throughout. The article is not yet ready for FAC, however, because of prose, style, layout, and image-licensing questions that I mention below. All of these problems are solvable, though some will require a fair bit of time and effort. Here are my suggestions.

Layout

The Manual of Style generally recommends against extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs. The "Apparitions" section has a fractured (listy) appearance because it contains so many tiny subsections. I'd suggest merging these in some logical manner to make a smaller set of longer subsections.
Images should not overlap two sections or subsections but be fully contained within the section they illustrate. Combining short subsections should make this layout problems easier to solve. For example, all the BC apparitions might be grouped under one subhead

Lead

"and can currently be seen every 75–76 years" - Generally, it's better to replace vague time terms like "currently" with something more specific. Would this be better as "since the 18th century"? Also, I think the sentence would scan better if "75–76" years were changed to "75 to 76 years". Ditto for similar constructions throughout the article.
"Many comets with long orbital periods may appear brighter and more spectacular, but Halley is the only short-period comet that is clearly visible to the naked eye, and thus, the only naked-eye comet certain to return within a human lifetime." - It does not follow logically that the short periodicity and naked-eye visibility make it certain that the comet will return within any particular human lifetime. I'd be inclined to drop the last part of the claim or to modify it to something like "... thus, the only naked-eye comet that might appear twice in an observer's lifetime".
"after whom the comet is now named" - Delete "now"?

Computation of orbit

"(he was later found to be correct; see Newton's Comet) - Generally it's best to avoid addressing the reader directly as here in the implied "You see Newton's Comet", an imperative.
"Halley's prediction of the comet's return proved to be correct, although it was not seen until 25 December 1758 (by Johann Georg Palitzsch, a German farmer and amateur astronomer) and did not pass through its perihelion until March 13, 1759, the attraction of Jupiter and Saturn having caused a retardation of 618 days,[23] as was computed (with a one-month error to April 13)[24] by a team of three French mathematicians, Alexis Clairault, Joseph Lalande, and Nicole-Reine Lepaute,[25] previous to its return." - Too complex. Break into two sentences.

Orbit and origin

"Its perihelion, its closest distance to the Sun, is just 0.6 AU... ". - It would be helpful to non-astronomers if you converted as astronomical units to miles and kilometers on each use of AU. Also, on first use, it would be good to spell out and link astronomical unit (AU).

Structure and composition

"which may extend about 100 million kilometres into space" - I'd suggest giving this in imperial units as well as metric. Ditto for other measures given in metric only.

9 June 1456 (1P/1456 K1, 1456)

The direct quote from Platina needs a source.

1531-1759

Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
This short list could easily be turned into straight prose.

20 April 1910 (1P/1909 R1, 1910 II, 1909c)

Dates like May 18 are not normally linked.
"Halley's 1910 apparition should not be confused with the Great Daylight Comet of 1910... " - Instead of telling the reader what he or she should do, it would be better to say something like "Halley's 1910 apparition differs from the Great Daylight Comet of 1910... ".

Images

The licensing for Image:Halleys comet.jpg is a bit shaky. For example, it's not possible to tell from the description where in the world this tablet resides. The image appears to be self-made, but the description does not say so. It would be good to fill in as much of the missing information as possible.
Image:Tigran Mets.jpg has similar problems and has been flagged at the Commons for lack of source information.
You may be asked where in the Nuremberg Chronicle the image Image:NurembergHalley.jpg appears and which edition this refers to. If you could add a link to the exact page, that would be helpful.
Image:Tapestry of bayeux10.jpg lacks a date on its Commons description page. It should be possible to add at least an approximate date for the tapestry's creation.
"Comet Halley at 28 AU Heliocentric Distance. Credit ESO" - The credit on the licensing page is sufficient and shouldn't appear in the caption.
The images need alt text, meant to explain the content of images to readers who can't see them. WP:ALT has details. Helpful alt text is a requirement for FA, and it is not the same as captions for sighted readers. You can use the alt text viewer in the box at the top of this review page to check the alt text.

General

The dabfinder tool at the top of this page finds four wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

References

Newspaper names should appear in italics.
Date formatting should be consistent throughout the refs; in this case, it would be easier to change all nonconforming dates such as November 12, 2009 in citation 71 to yyyy-mm-dd.
Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
Authors are normally listed last name first.
Even when a source uses all caps in a title, Wikipedia converts this to title case. Thus, FROM KUIPER BELT OBJECT TO COMETARY NUCLEUS: THE MISSING ULTRARED MATTER in citation 34 should be altered to "From Kuiper Belt Object to Cometary Nucleus: The Missing Ultrared Matter".
What makes a dot-com source like "www.twainquotes.com" reliable?
What makes a personal web site like Bill Arnett's in citation 31 reliable? It's doubtful that it meets the requirements of WP:RS.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)