Wikipedia:Peer review/Star/archive1

Star

This article has undergone steady expansion and is now decently referenced. There are a few esoteric topics that could be added, but it appears to cover the important elements. Please let me know what else can be done to bring this up to FA-equivalent. (I don't ever plan to take it for FA because the page is subject to frequent plebish vandalism. :) Note that the French and German versions of this topic are FA. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the article carefully at all, but did notice a few things:

~~The section "Age and size of stars" needs some more references.~~
- I've added four more where they seemed appropriate. I'm never quite sure when enough is enough. :-) — RJH (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~The solar mass and luminosity are unreferenced here, and also in their own articles.~~
- I added a decent reference on this page and the other two articles. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps "Stellar structure" could use a diagram?~~
- ~~That'll need some work. The New Cosmos has a really nice evolutionary cross-section plot that I might try to replicate. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - I found a diagram in the commons that seems to do the job. — RJH (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Nuclear fusion reaction pathways" and "Radiation" (including subsections) are unreferenced.~~
- Some references added. — RJH (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Should astrology be mentioned in "Star mythology"?~~
- Since it's not mentioned, I guess you're asking if it should? The section is about star names and their relation to mythology. It's not clear to me what that has to do with astrology, which seems to have more to do with the positions of the stars in the sky. So I don't know really. It'd be about as relevant as navigation by the stars, I think. *shrug* — RJH (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was just a random thought. The article is probably better off without it. Ardric47 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The external links might need some work. For example, while [1] may have some good information, the layout leaves something to be desired, and the advertising at the top is too much (the actual content doesn't start until I scroll down a whole screen).
- I tried to clean the external links up as best I could and added in a couple more decent sources. A few of the links have been deleted or more to more appropriate pages—hopefully that won't irritate the original contributors too much. — RJH (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although some of this may indeed be "common knowledge," I'm sure different sources sometimes have slightly different numbers, so it's important to say where these came from. Ardric47 20:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Ardric47 and AndyZ. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]