Wikipedia:Peer review/Rings of Neptune/archive1

Rings of Neptune

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been rewritten and I need an input from editors not familiar with text, before I can go to FAC.

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needed some minor copy editing, but overall I think it is in good shape. There is some terminology that may be unclear to the non-specialist: phase function, co-rotational inclination resonance and co-rotational eccentricity resonance. I'm also unclear about the use of 'longitude' in the Arcs section. Could the reference system for the longitudes be explained somewhere? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added notes. Ruslik (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. You might want to consider using this extension for grouped references.—RJH (talk)

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

I did not think that bold words in the lead could also be linked - see WP:LEAD
Per WP:MOSNUM, spell out numbers less than ten, so fix As of 2008, it is known to consist of 5 named rings. Also could this sentence and the next be combined to flow better?
Provide context for the reader, so I owuld explain that Triton is Netune's largest moon in William Lassell, the discoverer of Triton, thought he had seen a ring around the planet.[1]
I like the lead image Image:Neptunian rings scheme.png, but the labels are not really legible on my computer in the article (300 px wide)
Isn't Uranus iteself younger than the solar system? Their age is probably less than the age of the Solar System.[3]
Article could use a copyedit to clean up the prose a bit - for example The width of this ring is about 2 000 km and [its] orbital radius is 41 000–43 000 km.[2] It is a faint ring with ~~the~~ [an] average normal optical depth of around 10−4,[a] and with a[n] equivalent depth of 0.15 km.[b][3] The fraction of dust in this ring is ]varies?] from 40 to 70%.[11][3] Should percent be spelled out?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a review. What do you think is better to increase the size of the image or the font size? Ruslik (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is plenty big already! I'd increase the font size, personally... MeegsC | Talk 22:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would make the fonts bigger, not the image. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]