This is my first request for a peer review, so hopefully some good suggestions will come out of it. :) The Moon is listed as a GA, although I'm not sure if it's ready for FA status. I've not edited the article as of yet, although any suggestions on improvements to the article that I'm able to make I'll try. Hopefully it will reach FA status if any problems that are highlighted are addressed. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 08:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of good content here, but the article has a somewhat unpolished feel. The key is organisation - articles like this which have been edited thousands of times and built up gradually are probably not organised as they would be if they'd been written from scratch by one person. What works really well is designing a model TOC, fitting all the existing content into it, then filling any gaps. Worldtraveller 15:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty comprehensive but, as Worldtraveller mentioned, somewhat disorganized and scattered.

• The lead could use expansion and clarification. Maybe start with some more general information and put all the terminology stuff in a nomenclature section. Also, even though it's in the linked articles, it should specify that the Luna spacecraft were launched by the USSR and the Apollo by the US.
• The infobox is so long that no one is going to look through it to find the info they need. Here's a case that's begging for an expand/hide functionality (but AFAIK that's impossible as yet?) Anyway, this may not be fixable without taking it up with whoever maintains the templates.
• The sections are very uneven in length and completeness. "Orbit and relationship to Earth" and "Occultation of Stars" stand out as skimpy.
• "Human understanding of the moon" is basically a trivia section in disguise. Could use a more narrative rewrite, or merge factoids into relevant sections elsewhere.

Opabinia regalis 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional comments:

• In the infobox at the top, is there a reference for all the data? Also I assume the Magnitude is for full moon? The bulk composition section should say "mass" rather than "weight".
• The two brief sections "The two sides of the Moon" and "Orbit and relationship to Earth" could easily be consolidated into one section.
• I'm unclear as to the purpose of the statement, "The Earth and Moon have many physical effects upon one another, including the tides." If so, what are the other effects and why aren't they listed in the same section? Is this referring to reflected light perhaps? Eclipses? Or the Earth's magnetosphere?
• I think that too much of the information about tides has been pulled onto the separate page, Earth and Moon. The paragraph on tides should at least mention the tidal braking and the effect on the Moon's orbital distance.
• The magnetic field section could mention the presence of micro-magnetospheres in locations such as the Reiner Gamma formation.[1]
• The presence of the "Moon's shadow as seen in muons" image in the "Presence of water" section is a little perplexing. Perhaps that could be moved to a more appropriate location?
• The "Human understanding of the Moon" section is too cluttered with images, and I'm not sure they add much to that part of the article.
• In general the article needs more in-line citations. For example, the citations in the "Presence of water" section have little if anything to do with the presence of water.[2]

Thanks! — RJH (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments so far, a lot of good suggestions for clarification, improvements and improved layout have come out of this. Thanks. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]