Wikipedia:Peer review/Asteroid belt/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 6:
** Done.
* The next sentence introduces the term minor planets and uses it in place of asteroid orbits. It's a bit odd that we have separate articles on these terms when both articles state the terms are interchangeable. This may not be a problem (I didn't completely read both articles), and is probably outside of the scope of this article, but is it possible to at least clarify this a little between these two sentences to avoid confusing readers?
** Good point. I added merge tags to the asteroid and minor planet articles since they are highly redundant.
* The 98.5% statistic makes the ''greatest concentration'' claim in the first sentence a bit redundant doesn't it? Is it worth just merging the two sentences?
** Done.
* ''most of the surviving material was swept out of the region.'' This wasn't clear at all until I read that only about 0.1% of the original belt remains. Can this be cleared up somehow?
** I tried to, but I'm not 100% certain I understand the difficulty.
* The size of the smallest bodies is described in the third paragraph, so is it worth doing the same for the larger bodies so we get a better indication of the range of sizes?
** Done.
* No indication is given of why Bode thought another planet may orbit in the gap between Mars and Jupiter - is this known? Was Ceres' discovery by direct observation?
** I started that section with a couple of paragraph-long discussion of the Titus-Bode law. Then I ended up removing it in order to keep the article focused. I think a reader could investigate this on the Johann Bode article if they were curious. Is that reasonable?
* ''A total of 1,000 asteroids had been found by 1923, 10,000 by 1951, and 100,000 by 1982.'' I think this should probably be referenced.
* ''About 220 of the asteroids in the belt are larger than 100 km.'' Maybe another reference needed here? Any chance of this being a little more precise than ''about''?
* ''(where 1 A.U., or astronomical unit, equals the average distance between the Earth and the Sun)'' Isn't it a bit late to be introducing this, considering the unit is used well before this paragraph?
** I moved it up a tad. It was in an appropriate ___location originally, but the text was revised.
* ''This "core" region contains approximately 93.4% of all numbered minor planets.'' It might be worth clarifying if you're talking about all numbered minor planets in the belt or the solar system here.
** Clarified.
* ''The absolute magnitudes of most asteroids are 11–19, with a peak at about 16.'' The problem is probably my (lack of?)understanding here, but it seems weird that a peak would be between a given range? Just checking.
** Changed to "median".
* ''They are redder in hue'' I don't have any suggestions off the top of my head, just the word redder seems a bit odd.
** Tried to fix.
* ''the mean orbital period of an asteroid forms an integer fraction with the orbital period of Jupiter.'' For some reason this just doesn't seem to read very well. Maybe something like ''the mean orbital period of an asteroid together with the orbital period of Jupiter forms an integer fraction ..'' and then work the mean-motion resonance into the rest of the sentence instead of leaving it until the next sentence? It just wasn't very clear until I read the next paragraph.
** Slightly modified; hopefully it's better.
* ''The main ones'' Maybe ''The main Kirkwood gaps''?
** Okay.
* ''After five billion years, the current asteroid belt population bears little resemblance to the original one.'' Wording is a little odd again. ''will bear'' will probably suffice, but I don't think a little more work on this sentence would hurt.
** I'm not completely clear about the problem, since it was comparing the current population to the progenitor asteroids. But I did a rewrite; hopefully it's better now.
* ''Approximately a third'' -> ''Approximately one third'' ?
** Okay.
* The '''In media''' section is a bit lame. Half of the section is material that was only just discussed in the previous section. Any chance of this being expanded to include specific examples, maybe even some misconceptions or something?
** Nope, sorry. This section was very deliberately whitted down to a bare minimum so that the article could focused on the scientific aspects of the belt. The main article link for that section contains a slew of examples and a discussion. The current article is past 32Kb. — [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']])
Hopefully some of this helps, and thanks again for another interesting read. Cheers, [[User:Darkliight|darkliight]]<sup>[[User_talk:Darkliight|[πalk]]]</sup> 12:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you for your good feedback. The references will take a little longer to complete. — [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
| |||