Wikipedia:Peer review/Tau Ceti/archive1

Tau Ceti

This nearby star is somewhat smaller than the Sun, and in the past has been the subject of SETI searches. Recently a thick dust belt has been discovered in orbit. I'd like to bring this relatively short article up to GA status, but first I'd appreciate a peer review to look for any deficiencies or potential enhancements. Your comments would be helpful. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would include the image of the constellation Cetus, which shows Tau Ceti's location. (See: Deneb). Jacob1207 19:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I may have to put in an image request for that one. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• The lead is really grabbing, but my reading interest was slaughtered by the prose in the Observations section. Many sentences just give the fact without explaining what it means. Also, I'd suggest incorporating the specifics instead of "significantly older than the sun", "somewhat lower than the sun", etc.--Will.i.am 09:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm expanding the observation section, which I hope will make it more interesting and clarify matters. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting article. Here are my comments:
  • Tau Ceti (τ Cet / τ Ceti) is a star commonly mentioned by science fiction authors since it is similar to the Sun in mass and spectral type in addition to being relatively close to us. Is the most significant feature of this star the fact that it's "commonly mentioned by science fiction authors"? I'd suggest moving that part to a second sentence, and instead focus on its characteristics (where it is, what kind of star it is, etc.) See the first few sentences in Alpha_Centauri. You might want to read up on WP:LEAD if you haven't already. A lead should summarize the article, but in this case, the stuff about science fiction authors is not mentioned afterwards. Finally, avoid first person ("us") in Wikipedia articles.
  • Second paragraph of the lead is disjointed.
  • First reference is actually a note, and belongs in a separate "Notes" section, not in the references. Gzkn 03:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a way to have a separate notes section that has different content from the <references /> list, other than by using an obsolete technique? I tried to address your other comments. — RJH (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Changes look good. Not sure if it employs an obsolete technique or not, but El Greco has separate notes and references sections. You may want to ask User:Yannismarou about it, as he's taken charge of that article. Gzkn 03:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay a notes section has been implemented. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)