Wikipedia:Peer review/Discovery of Neptune/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is ready for GA or FA consideration.
Thanks, Serendipodous 11:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment besides the lack of references in several parts, the image/scheme is not extremely helpful. Sure, maybe they were close with the prediction, but there isn't a good sense of scale. To the average, non-astronomer reader, it doesn't really give much away. Zooming out, something like in File:Oort cloud Sedna orbit.svg would greatly help the value of the scale. I would also clarify that Neptune cannot be seen without a telescope, so technically speaking, Galileo was the first person who could have seen the planet (such nobody drops by and asks about Mesopotamians). I might be wrong, but loosely speaking, isn't principle behind Netune's prediction basically the same large planets are predicted around other stars? If yes, it might be worth noting this importance. Also, it might be important to create another section in the relevance of discovery: confirmation of Newton's laws, last discovery of planet in the SS to date, even creating the principle behind the modern day predictions of massive (dark or yet unobserved bright) objects around luminous bodies, and starting the quest for the planet X. Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Which picture do you mean? Serendipodous 07:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The quality of the article does not look good. Its editing still carries rather more than the scars of previous episodes of POV-pushing and poorly-supported dubious compromise-edits that resulted. Edits have given undue prominence to arguably non-notable gee-whiz speculations with little or no foundation, and added non-RS citations. Citation to authentic historical and/or peer-reviewed source material seems to have been deleted. Some references appear to be cited for what they do not contain. References to the pre-discovery observations that are now reckoned, by retrospective calculation, to be probably of the object now known as Neptune are not yet well handled -- which would need avoidance of anachronism, and acknowledgement of the retrospective nature and degree of likelihood of the various hindsight attributions. Jumps to conclusions about the status of ink-spots are in need of RS support. Cleaning it up would be a lot of work, in the meantime the article does not yet seem to have reached a state that deserves a badge of approval. The backbone of the article and its core facts would do a lot better than at present, if it were re-edited to follow the plan and core facts of the excellent and quite neutral 1946 article (already cited, but little used for what it actually contains) by Prof A Danjon, then director of the Paris Observatory. Terry0051 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)