User:Hamiltonstone/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am using this page to work on material I either have not been able to properly format or do not want to place on controversial pages until better drafted. This is the template text to park on a page when making a major edit: {{inuse}}


[edit] References



[edit] "good article" nomination text for Formation and evolution of the Solar System

 Hamiltonstone/Sandbox is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Well written?: Almost pass
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?: Almost pass
3. Broad in coverage?: So-so
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass (but see issue re nebular hypothesis)
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

This is a promising article. A few things that can be tweaked (and i will do a little bit of it, esp. refs) are:

  • Improve the referencing. Many of the references are to web-based articles and the references show only a title. If the links ever go dead, there is no additional information to help the reader re-locate and verify a source.
  • The article opens with a couple of phrases: "...theories concerning the formation and evolution of the Solar System are complex and varied, interweaving various scientific disciplines, from astronomy and physics to geology and planetary science. Over the centuries, many theories have been advanced...". However, the history section moves straight to "the" current hypothesis, leaving the reader without a clear sense of them being either varied, or of many of them having been advanced. This suggests the "History" section is incomplete.
  • A slight restructure to get some material in a more logical order may help (a proposal is below). This also relates to my other point...
  • I think it may benefit from a more thorough treatment of alternatives to, and problems with, the nebular hypothesis, particularly given the "hot Jupiter" issue. Currently the article leads with the phrase "The current hypothesis of the Solar System's formation is the nebular hypothesis..." and goes on from there, giving the impression that this is fairly settled. The subsection that deals with problems with the hypothesis is in a later section, and the challenges to the hypothesis presented by exoplanet discoveries are not mentioned in that later section (though they do get mentioned in the first section!). Not much weight appears to be given to alternative hypotheses. If that is because they are minor and not widely supported then that is fair enough: Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight. I'm open to other opinions on this, but think it needs to be more carefully addressed.
  • My suggestion for structure overall is:
1. Statement about the age of the solar system and general views about its likely longevity, and then some "tasters" re how it has not always been the same, as a way of introducing the idea that it has an origin and an evolutionary path.
2. History of ideas about solar system origins pre-nubular hypothesis
3. Statement of the nebular hypothesis without any of the criticisms
4. Description of origins and early evolution consistent with this hypothesis (the stuff in the "Pre-solar nebula" and "Formation of planets" sub-sections and most material in the "Subsequent evolution" section).
5. Section called something like "Limitations and challenges to the nebular hypothesis". Aggregate such material here from "History of solar system formation hypotheses" and "Problems with the nebular hypothesis". Deal with capture theory. If appropriate, have an "alternative hypotheses" sub-head.
6. "Future" pretty much as-is.
  • I think there may need to be a more thorough treatment of the subject of moons, including naming of specific examples of moons that fall into different categories, including retro-orbiting (not explicitly mentioned at present). I admit that particular heading is tricky to fit in to the above schema, because one of the key features of moons as a class is that they did not all evolve at the same stage in the solar system's development.
  • Bearing in mind I'm not an expert in the field, I'd have thought this article would then be GA and well on the way to FA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)