Wikipedia:Peer review/Nebular hypothesis/archive1

Nebular hypothesis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been significantly expanded recently. I invite any kinds of commments about this article.

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments by RJHall

• Per the MoS, could you give an estimate of "the short time scale"?
• It was pointed out to me that not everybody would know what "of the order of" means.
• "It should be noted that a T Tauri star is a young solar mass star with hightened levels of stellar activity." Can't they be up to two solar masses? Shouldn't the text also mention the other cases?
• I'm unclear about the relevance of the paragraph that begins, "Recent analysis of the composition of eight meteorites...". Perhaps that should be on the Solar System page?
• This seems odd: H_r=(M/3M)^1/3. Don't the M's cancel out? Probably should be (m/3M)^1/3 I think.
• A few more images would be beneficial.

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have addressed these issues. Ruslik (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

• OK, I am not clear whether this is still the currently most-accepted model from the lead. If so then: this method of planetary system formation was subsequently thought to be at work throughout the universe. - needs to be in the present tense. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• ..into even denser clumps. --> "into smaller and denser clumps." - 'even' doesn't really gel here as the clouds aren't dense to begin with.

• Actually scrub that as this needs to be rewritten. From the next sentence I gather the clumps are within the clouds, whereas the original sentence suggests the GMC fragments into clumps, in which case try "Such clouds are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within. These then (proceed to) collapse and form stars." - does that flow better? bracketed bit optional

• complicated multistage process - why not just complex process?

• Shouldn't the star formation box be up at the top right?

• where the number density of planetesimals is sufficiently high - does this mean density or number? - if former, remove 'number' , if latter say 'where the planetesimals are numerous enough' or somesuch.

I meant here the number of planetesimals per a unit of volume, like particle number density. The density of planetesimals would mean their physical density. Ruslik (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• At the later stage the growth slows - why note 'Growth later slows..'

• The main problem is the mechanism of angular momentum transport from the inner to the outer part of the disk, which is necessary for efficient accretion by the protostar. - umm, this needs to be in plainer english or explained a little

• As the envelope's material infalls onto the disk - infalls is ungainly. Try 'falls' or 'settles' or somesuch.

What is wrong with this word? It is widely used in scientific literature. Ruslik (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy if you feel strongly about it and there is something about the word that conveys something not included in the mere 'falls'. It just sounds odd to my ears. Nevermind. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• This event, which can be called the birth of a new star, happens... - can this just be "This birth of a new star occurs..." ?

• In para 4 of Protostars you mention T Tauri 9 times (!). If you can reduce the repetition without losing meaning it would scan better. If this is impossible don't worry.

• vicious dissipation - viscous dissipation??

• 'The formation of giant planets is an outstanding problem.. - outstanding generally means 'great' now in regular English. I know what you mean here but the meaning of the adjective has changed such that it looks odd. if you can think of another it'd be helpful.

I meant somethink like 'outstanding debt' here. I have not known that it means 'great':). Ruslik (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A final note - the prose is not looking too bad. What you need to do most is check repetition. glazing my eyes and scanning over the article I can see many nouns, verbs and adjectives repeated often. Much of the time this is necessary without introducing ambiguity in meaning. However, I think some can be addressed. Scan over the text and whereever you see the same word repeated in consecutive sentences, see if it can be replaced with a pronoun or somehow removed. Many times this won't be possible but it may be in some cases (see T Tauri as an example). It iwll make the text more readable.

I also am not much into See Also sections, but its a personal choice really. Good luck Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by CrazyChemGuy

• I think the history section could be expanded. It describes when the hypothesis was first conceived, but doesn't really talk about it after the 18th century or describe how it became adapted to use outside of our own solar system.

I have expanded History section. Ruslik (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The lead section on this article seems quite long and has information that can't be found elsewhere in the article - I really don't think there's anything wrong with it, and it fits with WP:LEAD, but do you think it may be beneficial to move some of its content to the body of the article- for example, the information about the formation of giant planets could have a summary in the lead section and a somewhat expanded version of what is there now as it's own section in the article?

Could you be more specific? I tried to avoid mentioning anything that is not the main text. Ruslik (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize this may sound dumb, but in trying to figure out what I had in mind writing that comment, I beleive I got my tabs mixed up in firefox - I beleive I wrote that comment about an earlier version I was viewing, from 9 April. I'm really sorry about that - I don't see the information left out of the giant planet section anymore CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also, given the length of the protoplanetary disks section compared to the Protoplanetary disk article itself, you may (or may not, I don't actually know) want to consider moving or copying some content from the former to the latter. There is a lot of detail about proplyd formation in the nebular hypothesis article that can't be found in protoplanetary disk.

I may do this in future. Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you've done quite a job working on this article. Thanks for your hard work! CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody. I am going to nominate the article (FAC) now. Ruslik (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)