Solar system

You may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solar System/archive2 or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solar system: see here for explanation of FAC archive corrections SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More testing the water, really. I'm looking to see what can be done to make the article feature quality. I would appreciate your comments. Serendipodous 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are looking for Wikipedia:Peer review. Jkelly 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article's already received several peer reviews. I've answered most of their comments. Serendipodous 23:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address some of the image crowding, but became discouraged. Jkelly 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well rounded, nice amount of introductory info on solar system components, some inline references and images nicely spaced out and relevant. The only thing is to either whip up a stub page on Inner oort Cloud or leave it black for the time being. Cas Liber 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few red links won't hurt anything. Will review later. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—2a.
  • "For many years, the solar system had the only planetary system known." Awkward.
  • "nine planets and their 165 moons [1], known as of July, 2006,..."—What exactly does "known" mean here?
  • "The Sun's two largest orbiting bodies, Jupiter and Saturn, together account for more than 90% of the system's remaining mass. (The Oort cloud too might hold a substantial percentage, but as yet its existence is unconfirmed...". Redundancy marked; the Oort cloud sounds like a certainty, only to be questioned later in the sentence,
  • "The major planets are, in order of distance from the Sun, Mercury,...". Word order awkward in places—here, "are" should be after "Sun,".
  • "lie within the same shallow plane, called the ecliptic plane,..."—Unnecessary repetition.

Plus lots more. There are numerous good copy-editors in this field. Tony 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Several organizational issues and other stuff. Jeronimo 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would appear to be more logical to start with "Formation" (and possibly "Discovery and history") - debatable though.
  • The first section starts with an explanation of distances; this looks like it would be more at home in a footnote.
  • "Layout and distances" has Kepler's laws as a main article, but doesn't mention these laws in the section.
  • The images of the inner and outer planets might best be combined in a single image, it is currently rather messy with so many images.
  • It appears strange to me that the "normal" planets get less text/attention than most of the "abnormalities" and "extremities". The article should have a good balance of importance, and less important features of the solar system should get less attention and refer to their respective article.
  • It seems strange not to mention some of the "Galactic context" in the lead section; The Milky Way is only mentioned first shortly before that section.
  • Non-standard terms should be explained, even if they link to another article. For example, in "Formation and evolution" Gyr is not a common abbreviatio, while it can easily be explained in the same sentence between parenthesis. The same goes for many more terms, expressions and abbreviations.
  • The level of attention for the formula in the "Layout and distances" section seems unappropriate for the article, especially since it is admitted to be "uncomfortable science".
  • Some of the image captions are not properly capitalized or could be more informative. Other images are only vaguely relevent, and could easily be removed in this article (e.g. "Galileo's telescope", "A representation of a planet's elliptical orbit").
  • The "See also" section could be much shorter. Some terms would better be linked in appropriate places, other are not too relevant.
  • The External links section should be sorted out, and annotated. Why are sites relevant?
• Object Article was simmutaneously nominated for Good Article status. It was unsuccessful for reasons detailed on its talk page. --jwanders^Talk 00:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object for now. A few comments:
  • I see nothing regarding the discovery of Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto.
  • "Pluto remains the only planet not having been visited by a man-made spacecraft, though that will change with the successful launch of the New Horizons spacecraft on 19 January 2006. This unmanned mission is scheduled to fly by Pluto in July 2015 and then make an extensive study of as many Kuiper Belt objects as it can."--sounds awkward
  • I would like to see a liitle bit more detail regarding the formation of the solar system.
  • "The upcoming MESSENGER probe should aid in resolving this issue." --could be worded better.
  • Maybe add something about the debate regarding the definition of a planet?

--Nebular110 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - too much focus on individual planets rather than the system as a whole. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]