This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was wondering what more would be required to bring this article to FA level.
Thanks, Serendi pod ous 18:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Section, Observational history:
Section, Nomenclature:
Section, Population:
Comments from RJHall: I tried to make some more revisionss, but some of my changes have vanished for unknown reasons. I'll just put my concerns below.
Thank you and good luck.— RJH ( talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing this but there should be an explanation to why L1-3 are not occupied, or if they are, compare them a bit with L4-5. Nergaal ( talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest using an actual image of the largest member. These ones seem ok [1] [2] if no other is found. Nergaal ( talk) 09:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Natural Cut: I actually stopped copyediting because I'm not familiar with some scientific terms and was afraid I might be wrong when I linked the word binaries to binary star. But I also had a question pertaining to the use of Jovian Trojan versus Jupiter Trojan. Should the instances of the former be replaced with the latter per the article title? Again, science isn't my forte, so I didn't want to mess with it. Jovian Trojan actually sounds better to my ear, not that that means anything. :-) Natural Cut ( talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if I hadn't been distracted at work and had read further down the article, I'd have seen it did refer to binary asteroid. Another suggestion is in the first paragraph of the nomenclature section: The first sentence should perhaps state Palisa as the originator of the naming tradition, unless he and Wolf came to separate conclusions or some other relation. It currently says that Wolf named the first one and then says "however" when it mentions Palisa's suggestion without making the connection clear.
Numbers and mass section, second paragraph - "nothing is known about smaller Trojans" - just "little is known" or "nothing is known about their mass" or something along those lines. We clearly know they exist and are small. ;-)
Under Formation and evolution, it kind of irks me to read "104" for a measure of years, maybe just a layman's perspective showing through though. I am also personally curious after reading the section, if one theory is more widely accepted. It hints at problems with the first theory but goes on to explain the second theory and leaves me at the point where (if I read this elsewhere) I normally go look things up on Wikipedia!
Overall it was a genuinely interesting read for me and I wish you luck. Natural Cut ( talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was wondering what more would be required to bring this article to FA level.
Thanks, Serendi pod ous 18:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Section, Observational history:
Section, Nomenclature:
Section, Population:
Comments from RJHall: I tried to make some more revisionss, but some of my changes have vanished for unknown reasons. I'll just put my concerns below.
Thank you and good luck.— RJH ( talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing this but there should be an explanation to why L1-3 are not occupied, or if they are, compare them a bit with L4-5. Nergaal ( talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest using an actual image of the largest member. These ones seem ok [1] [2] if no other is found. Nergaal ( talk) 09:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Natural Cut: I actually stopped copyediting because I'm not familiar with some scientific terms and was afraid I might be wrong when I linked the word binaries to binary star. But I also had a question pertaining to the use of Jovian Trojan versus Jupiter Trojan. Should the instances of the former be replaced with the latter per the article title? Again, science isn't my forte, so I didn't want to mess with it. Jovian Trojan actually sounds better to my ear, not that that means anything. :-) Natural Cut ( talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if I hadn't been distracted at work and had read further down the article, I'd have seen it did refer to binary asteroid. Another suggestion is in the first paragraph of the nomenclature section: The first sentence should perhaps state Palisa as the originator of the naming tradition, unless he and Wolf came to separate conclusions or some other relation. It currently says that Wolf named the first one and then says "however" when it mentions Palisa's suggestion without making the connection clear.
Numbers and mass section, second paragraph - "nothing is known about smaller Trojans" - just "little is known" or "nothing is known about their mass" or something along those lines. We clearly know they exist and are small. ;-)
Under Formation and evolution, it kind of irks me to read "104" for a measure of years, maybe just a layman's perspective showing through though. I am also personally curious after reading the section, if one theory is more widely accepted. It hints at problems with the first theory but goes on to explain the second theory and leaves me at the point where (if I read this elsewhere) I normally go look things up on Wikipedia!
Overall it was a genuinely interesting read for me and I wish you luck. Natural Cut ( talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)