This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of getting it to FAC and I would like to know what is still missing. Thanks,
Nergaal (
talk)
04:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments from RJH:
Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ricardiana
More later. Best, Ricardiana ( talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A quick Google search shows a source containing the quotation - [2] - which also makes the statements about the crust and internal heat, etc., very similarly to the way you've worded them, but only as possibilities rather than phrasing them, as you do, as certainties. You need to clean up your use of sources here. This is a big problem.
I'm just going to start a new section on sourcing problems. There's no point in fixing the prose when you're shooting for FAC and there are bigger (citation) fish to fry.
Sourcing problems ~ comments by Ricardiana
These are significant problems! If you plan on taking this to FAC, all sources need to be fixed.
One final point. Why are no books cited? I've studied astronomy and they certainly exist. A quick Google Books search turns up quite a few.
These problems are so serious that not only is this article not ready for FAC, I don't think it is a Good Article either, and I will be asking for a re-assessment. Ricardiana ( talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of getting it to FAC and I would like to know what is still missing. Thanks,
Nergaal (
talk)
04:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments from RJH:
Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ricardiana
More later. Best, Ricardiana ( talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A quick Google search shows a source containing the quotation - [2] - which also makes the statements about the crust and internal heat, etc., very similarly to the way you've worded them, but only as possibilities rather than phrasing them, as you do, as certainties. You need to clean up your use of sources here. This is a big problem.
I'm just going to start a new section on sourcing problems. There's no point in fixing the prose when you're shooting for FAC and there are bigger (citation) fish to fry.
Sourcing problems ~ comments by Ricardiana
These are significant problems! If you plan on taking this to FAC, all sources need to be fixed.
One final point. Why are no books cited? I've studied astronomy and they certainly exist. A quick Google Books search turns up quite a few.
These problems are so serious that not only is this article not ready for FAC, I don't think it is a Good Article either, and I will be asking for a re-assessment. Ricardiana ( talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)