Wikipedia:Peer review/Neptune/archive1

Neptune

This article went through a failed FAC, and I was wondering if there are still any outstanding issues with the article. Also, is there any more room for improvement? Pentawing 03:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks well organised, the only thing I can see structurally imperfect is that the numbered notes in the text don't have corresponding numbered notes in the notes list. I'm otherwise out of my depth with astronomy.--nixie 03:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I used another footnote format to resolve that issue. Pentawing 03:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The astronomy is solid, and the writing is engaging. I would support this nomination. D e nni ☯ 03:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that any of my objections were addressed (other than the prettytable one). I'm no expert on the subject, so if someone could explain why my suggestions are a bad idea, that's great, but as of now I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be addressed. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerning space missions, I am only aware of Voyager 2. So far, I haven't read of any missions being planned to Neptune in the near future. As for the other sections I'll try to address the problems, but I would appreciate help from someone with more knowledge of Neptune. Any takers? Pentawing 05:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is mention of Voyager 2's being the only space probe to visit Neptune in the introduction. When you speak of space missions, do you also mean Earth-based observations (I vaguely recall that the Hubble Space Telescope did some observations of Neptune several years ago). Pentawing 05:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, if I remember correctly I was comparing the article to another planet's article and seeing if anything appeared to be missing. But it makes sense that Neptune wouldn't have been visited as many times as Jupiter, for example. I guess I didn't notice the mention in the lead. As for my appearance comment in the FAC, are there articles on Wikipedia that talk about what each of those terms mean in this context? (i.e. "Opposition", "Stationary, prograde" and "Maximum Brightness (mag)") Linking to an article that defines them would help non astronomers make sense of the table without adding text to this article. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems that the issues have already been taken care of, unless I missed something.... Pentawing 22:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article could make mention of the proposed Neptune mission that was part of NASA's "Vision Missions Studies".[1] — RJH 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (in the introduction), though someone may want to check my wording. Pentawing 00:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a short paragraph to the Appearances section; please verify that it is correct. I did some calculations to figure out what angular diameter refers to, and got to thinking: why is it even included? It's quite simple for someone who knows what s/he is doing to calculate it based on the distance between earth and neptune (given in the table), the definition of AU (linked to in the table), and the diameter of neptune (given in the infobox). Unless of course it's used with great frequency, but I wouldn't expect that, especially not values only accurate to two decimal places. I may be entirely missing the point. Also, I'd still like to know the date at which the brightness values are accurate, although it would appear that they are accurate at all dates, since they're all 7.8. That begs the question, why give the range of 7.7-8.0 a couple paragraphs up when it's always 7.8? Why have that column? It'd be easier to say "At opposition (or whatever event you're talking about), the maximum brightness is always 7.8" and be done with it. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the brightness values are for opposition, though since the distance to Neptune does not vary greatly throughout the year, it probably would be correct for much of the year. I would be happy with just stating something like:

"Neptune has a brightness that can vary from 7.7 and 8.0. For the next 15 years it will be 7.8"

As for the angular diameter values, as you say they can be calculated. Perhaps the information should be incorporated into the prose where it talks about the appearance of Neptune and remove the entire column. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then of course there's the issue of where the table came from in the first place -- do we have a reference for it? I'd think that that would be quite essential, considering the amount of data it provides. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that the table was added by an anon on June 13-14, 2005. However, I can't find an online source that includes the information (other than Wikipedia and mirror sites). Pentawing 06:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]