Wikipedia:Peer review/Caelum/archive1

Caelum

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 I think it is quite close to FA-standard, but to be honest, the article is quite short, and I was wondering if there was anything that I was missing, or if there are other problems present.

Thanks, StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's a brief article but covers the topic reasonably well and is decent shape. Here's a few observations:

~~There's a number of instances of redundant wording: 'also', 'another'.~~
- Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~"a rather nearby"; vague~~
- Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~"that at first appeared to contain a jet but no host galaxy"; this wording is a little unclear~~
- I reworded it a little; hopefully this makes more sense. It's unfortunately quite hard to explain concisely. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the system will likely become a cataclysmic variable star due to the period's gradual shortening"; I think this could be explained a little better. For example, here's what it says in the paper: "The continued loss of angular momentum will shrink the Roche lobe of the M-dwarf to the point where mass transfer will start from the M-dwarf to the white dwarf through the inner Lagrangian point. RR Cae will then be a cataclysmic variable star."
- Hmm, it's hard to say this concisely. I reworded it a bit; hope this works! StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~"there is evidence for a second hypothetical substellar body"; evidence for a hypothetical body? Is this just redundancy or something else?~~
- Removed "hypothetical". StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Ridpath, Ian; Wil Tirion"; the second name is in an inconsistent format.~~
- Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~It's difficult to see in the north, so you could list the lowest northern latitude where this constellation can not be viewed.~~
- The info is already at the bottom of the infobox. If you think it should be in the main body too, just let me know again. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything else to add. Hopefully these comments are of some use. Praemonitus (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Praemonitus (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]