- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, this one is a little outside of my comfort zone! But very readable and easy to understand. Just a couple of very minor points.
- "20.2 ± 0.1": The article uses this quite a lot, and while I appreciate the need for accuracy, i wonder if the lead should just use an approximation as the general reader may not be familiar with ±. But not a big deal, and feel free to completely disagree.
- Agree, done.
- "to material kicked up by meteoroid impacts": Kicked up appears a little unencyclopedic.
- Changed.
- "It is thought to have formed from the debris lofted by a collision (see below)": I'm never too convinced about "see below". I think it works without this, and would be further made unnecessary if the origin section was moved above the physical properties section. However, this may not fit in with project/MoS guidelines.
- Reordered. Visited solar system project page and a few other moon pages, and there did not appear to be a project template for the order.
- "very nearly circular and coplanar, "neatly nested ... a bit like Russian dolls"." Looking at the source, I think this needs in-text attribution to make clear that an astronomer said this, rather than just being a quote from the article.
- Good point. Also prompted me to revise it to make clear that the person saying that was the moon's discoverer.
- I assume that we don't currently know the mass of the satellite?
- Not in the sources I have read. The highly variable estimates for radius support the inference that mass is not known.
- The image is fine, and spot-checks reveal no issues. Dablinks and external links are fine.
There may be a few issues for the general reader in this one, but that is unavoidable and not an issue for GA I don't think. I have a rather rusty basic background in physics/astronomy and followed it comfortably enough. I'll place this on hold for the moment and pass once these points are answered. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks Sarastro. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Everything looks good, passing now. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.