Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ariel (moon)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 17 January 2011 [1].

Ariel (moon) edit

Ariel (moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): User:Ruslik0, Serendipodous 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has reached a level comparable to that of Oberon (moon), which is also featured. It has been scanned for grammar and spelling errors, contains no unfree images, is properly sourced to academic journals and contains no links to disambig pages or to dead external pages. It has been alt-texted, is reasonably clear to the lay reader, given the complexity of its subject, and forms part of the current WP:Solar System, which aims to make all the large objects in the Solar System featured articles. Serendipodous 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request: can I ask if you would expand on your nomination statement above? We can infer that you believe it meets the FA criteria by the simple fact you have brought it here. You nomination statement really ought to tell us why - the reasons this specific article meets those criteria. A quick look at this article suggests it is not a million miles from where it needs to be, although a few adjustments are certainly needed, but in my view a more properly reasoned nomination is needed to get the ball rolling. That doesn't need to be an essay - perhaps a hundred words highlighting the best parts of this article with reference to the FA criteria would be more than sufficient. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate it if you'd like more information, but that nomination statement is pretty standard. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this form of nom statement has become increasingly outdated and can no longer be thought of as "standard". Something along the lines of that for the nom immediately above this one is much more helpful to prospective reviewers, and more likely to attract reviewer attention. I speak as one who (for my sins) spends much time trawling this page, and is grateful for any enlightenment that a nom statement can give. Not a deal-breaker, but something to bear in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could expand it a little, I suppose, but I fail to see how the nom above is any better. The para makes a good case for the notability of the article, but not for its quality. Notability should be discussed at AfD, not FAC. Serendipodous 10:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the slightly delayed replay - I've been busy this last week. I agree with you - that nomination is not much better - I'm personally not interested in why the subject is inherently interesting but why it is FA worthy, a point you make yourself but your nom does not doe this. I'll have a detailed look through the article now although I can't claim specific knowledge of the Uranian moons. However, I am reluctant to actively support a nomination that lacks a proper nomination since there is no basis for that support. It seems to me we need to be much more scrupulous about demanding proper nomination statements if only to get rid of some of the more unlikely candidates (not that this one is unlikely) before they ever come here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what it is you want me to say, other than what I said in my expanded nom statement above. In my time on Wikipedia I have brought 26 articles to FA level. In none of those cases were any "specific" qualities raised. The criteria for bringing an article to FA are standard, as they should be. Serendipodous 11:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Quantunsilverfish: I would hope that the reason the article has been nominated is because the nominators think it meets the FL criteria. Whenever that isn't stated, it can usually be implied. If a nominator didn't believe an article met the criteria, I would hope it isn't nominated to start with. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I don't know much about astronomy, but this article seems pretty close to FA standard to me. I think it needs a few tweaks to get across the line though:
    • "The surface shows signs of more recent geological activity than other Uranian moons, probably affected by tidal heating." - it's unclear from this whether its Ariel or the other moons (or both) which are affected by tidal heating
    • Is it possible to provide more detail on Lassell's discovery of Ariel? (ie, was he specifically looking for further moons?)
      I've had a look at the British Library's catalogue and the 1885 DNB, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of context; Lassell did discover many moons, though. Serendipodous 12:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All Uranus's moons are named after characters created by William Shakespeare or Alexander Pope" - should this be William Shakespeare and Alexander Pope? - the current wording suggests that its not known who created the characters
    • How can a round planet orbit the sun "almost on its side"? (I suspect that the use of 'side' in this context is technical)
    • How is Ariel the "fourth largest and third most massive of the Uranian moons" (again, I suspect that 'massive' has a specialised meaning here - would something like "the fourth largest and third heaviest" work?)
      No ("heavy" doesn't really have a meaning in space) but I can link the word "massive". Serendipodous 09:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I've tweaked that a bit further to 'and may have the third greatest mass' as 'massive' is going to confuse people, I think, and the end note says it's not known for sure. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources look fine, but is dictionary.com the best reference for what its given as a reference for? (the Oxford English Dictionary or one of the major US dictionaries might be better).
    • The sources of File:Ariel's transecting valleys.jpg File:Ariel HiRes.jpg and File:Arieluranus.jpg aren't clearly identified (the first two should be online on NASA's website so URLs should be added and the third image seems to be from http://nextgen.stsci.edu/gallery/album/solar_system/pr2006042c/npp/all/ ) Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Other issues resolved. Serendipodous 12:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - 1 dab (Scarp); 1 dead external link- this is 404ing on me, though noaa.gov itself seems to be fine. --PresN 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry thought I got those. Fixed. Serendipodous 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, it has come to my attention that the cite doi and cite pmid templates frequently return errors; have you checked them all? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They all worked for me; some just took longer to load. Please tell me this won't become a regular thing. Serendipodous 00:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only things i do not see covered are whether any occultations of stars have been observed and whether it is observeable from earth with ground base telescopes, and if so the minimum magnification it is oberveable at.XavierGreen (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard of moons occulting stars. Planets yes, but not moons. Except our moon, of course. Serendipodous 00:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything in space can occult a star, asteroids have been observed occulting stars. Moons have been observed to occult stars as well, for example Titania occulted a bright star (HIP 106829) on September 8, 2001. If any occultations have been observed they should be included in the text as they are rare events.XavierGreen (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've gone through a hundred scholarly abstracts on Google and haven't found any reference to a stellar occultation by Ariel. Quite frankly I'm astounded it happens at all, given the small size of moons, the narrow window of time during which it would even be possible, and the rarity of occultations generally. Serendipodous 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know whether they have been observed but none has been reported. The occultation by Titania of a 7.2 magnitude star was an exceedingly rare event which is unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future (though a few occultations by Triton were observed in 1990s). Occultations of faint stars with magnitude >15 may happen every year but they are very difficult to observe. So, the absence of reports is not surprising. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Like i said they are rare, if no notable ones have been observed thats not a problem. Have you included information on the minimum magnification needed to observe Ariel? Once that issue has been adressed ill be happy to support. The information about triton and titania occultations should be added to their articles, but thats out of the scope of this review so ill leave comments on the associated talk pages.XavierGreen (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Serendipodous 00:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, ive changed my status to supporting. Nice work!XavierGreen (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment—This looks FA quality and I am ready to support. One minor point is that there is no mention in the text of the moon's lack of a magnetic field or atmosphere. I can understand if these were not included because of lack of suitable sources, but then where is the source for the zero atmospheric pressure in the infobox? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't find any citations so I removed the atmosphere section from the infobox. Serendipodous 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's unfortunate. I didn't have any success either. Thanks for looking.—RJH (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no deal-breakers in prose, a some words repeated a bit but there are no alternatives without losing meaning. Comprehensive. Hence we're there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review? And can Ruslik let me know if the doi templates have been checked, since he was the one who told me about the problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I said above, I checked the dois. And Nick-D did an image check. Issues solved. Serendipodous 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You said, "They all worked for me; some just took longer to load;" the question is whether you've checked that they are linking to the right article, per Ruslik0's commentary to me elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I could tell, they all were. Serendipodous 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images are on the commons and have suitable 'alt' text. The File:Ariel's transecting valleys.jpg image doesn't have a license template. All others appear properly licensed.—RJH (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd; the template shows up on the commons page but not on the Wikipedia transclusion, for some reason. Serendipodous 18:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Refresh the cash of your browser. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good now. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I haven't checked the MNRAS reference in full - I may try and seek it out next time I'm at the local Uni library - but the online source for the first page does not back up the assertion made of it. The introduction does not comment on the validity of his findings at all and indeed I don't think it can properly be used to reference current thinking as is done here when it itself date from 1848. I can see the incentive to try and dismiss Hershell's observations since it gives a single unambiguous discoverer and data of discovery. However, a truly encyclopedic entry should explain the difficulty and allow the reader to form their own judgment rather than sweep issues under the carpet so simple entries can be put in the infobox. — Quantumsilverfish 08:30, January 8, 2011 — continues after insertion below
You can read the full article without going to a library. I also think the Herschel's story is beyond the scope of this article as Herschel claimed the discovery of satellites with orbital parameters very different to the actual interior satellites. Struve was actually quite dismissive of Herschel's claims.
I added two more references.
As for the William Shakespeare and/or Alexander Pope issue raised above, personally I feel the current wording is actually worse than the original. "And" implies they are characters named during some collaboration between the two, not that they are taken from different works from two individuals. A more extensive re-working would be needed to avoid ambiguity than a simple word substitution.
"And" implies only that characters are mentioned in the works of both authors. It is beyond the scope of this article to consider how Shakespeare and Pope wrote them in XVII century.
Rephrased.
"Its orbital period is around 2.5 Earth days, coincident with its rotational period". That should be synodic period: in the case of Ariel where its orbital period is so much shorter than Uranus the difference between the two is small, but still hugely significant, since the current wording contradicts the subsequent assertion that Ariel is tidally locked.
All orbital and rotational periods in this article are sidereal—relative to stars.
The assertion made of the Hussman et al reference from Icarus seems dubious to me. I've just got a copy of the paper and I immediately note it does not mention Ariel at all except in table entries, none of which at a glance support the assertion. I'll read through it properly today.
Which assertion do you mean?
"It is recommended to use as much magnification as allowed by the weather conditions." That is decidedly advisory per WP:NOTHOWTO and needs reworking to state that magnification will help with distinguishing it in a more factual manner.
It is was added in response to a reviewer request above. Generally for a faint object in the glare of a bright object, as much magnification as possible is good. I doubt any more factual description is possible. Ruslik_Zero 17:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It was removed. Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that I don't think this is a million miles from FA standard. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - while the article isn't perfect (none are), I am much happier with the prose now with the editors' quick work to my many complains. I feel it is the best source of info on the topic anywhere, so that passes my primary FA criterion. I guess I was hoping for more, but as Serendipodous pointed out it was only observed once. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lede is too short. The second paragraph should be roughly the same size as the first
    • Better now, but they should still be roughly equal. The three paragraphs are stubby. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it'd be helpful to specify how many moons of Uranus there are
  • The writing is weak in places
    • "Although William Herschel, the discoverer of Uranus's two largest moons Titania and Oberon, claimed at the end of the 18th century that he had observed four additional moons of Uranus" - that is a sentence fragment. In short, it reads "Although Herschel claimed that he observed", which isn't a sentence.
    • "In other words" and "This is important" - sound a bit colloquial for an FA
    • The word "Ariel" is used a lot; three consecutive sentences in the lede have it, the first two sentences of Orbit start with it, etc. I just feel it is used excessively. It's a planet, not a person.
      • Eight paragraphs still start with the word "Ariel"... --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, paragraphs tend to start by mentioning what they're about. Serendipodous 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I reduced the number down to 5 paragraphs. That doesn't seem excessive.—RJH (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This is important, because the trailing hemispheres of airless satellites orbiting inside a magnetosphere (like Ariel) are struck by magnetospheric plasma, which co-rotates with the planet" - I'm fairly sure there is a grammar error, with regards to noun/verb agreement
      There isn't, but rephrased it anyway. Serendipodous 09:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2007–2008 a number of such events was observed including an occultation of Ariel by Umbriel on August 19, 2007." - the wording is awkward, with "such events was" (my emphasis).
      A number of such events was Serendipodous 09:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Yea, I know the writing of the full sentence, hence "my emphasis". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it take 42 years for one side of the moon to switch sunlight vs. darkness? I didn't really understand that from the text
    • You could probably compare it to the polar night on Earth and point out that it takes Uranus 84 years to complete an orbit, compared to one year for the Earth.—RJH (talk)
  • Some context would be good how far in the past that there might have been resonances. Also, explaining the uncertainty would be good
    I added an approximate time.
    What about the others? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by as much as 20 K" - there is no context what K is
    • Although, I still think it'd be great if there was a Fahrenheit conversion, I understand only using K for the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going with the above, be sure that all units have both metric and imperial conversions
    No. Astronomical articles, by mutual agreement, do not use imperial measurements, as science uses metric exclusively, and the numbers involved are so vast that the comparisons make little difference. Serendipodous 09:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point me to that discussion? Certainly "190000 km" and "372 km" could and should have the number of miles. Likewise, "1.66 g/cm3" should have cubic pounds. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cubic pounds? I have never read such a silly comment. Ruslik_Zero 17:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, pounds per cubic inch ;) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A good intro to the endless discussion of SI units in astronomy can be found here, if you really feel the need to get involved. Serendipodous 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I still strongly think there should be conversions for km into miles, cm into inches, and K into something we know of (not even to Fahrenheit, but I noticed another solar system article had K and C). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a wide-ranging discussion that is outside the scope of this FAC. Serendipodous 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In serious astronomy, temperatures are almost always cited in Kelvin as they are in this article.XavierGreen (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CO2 " - should be linked
    Carbon dioxide is linked. Rather than do a redundant link I simply added the chemical formula in brackets. Serendipodous 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It demonstrates the strongest carbon dioxide abortion bands among satellites of Uranus and was, in fact, the first Uranian satellite on which this compound was discovered." - I really have no idea what this means (much better!)
  • "It might be produced locally from carbonates or organic materials under the influence of the energetic charged particles coming from Uranus's magnetosphere or solar ultraviolet radiation." - IMO, that sort of sentence should indicate who indicates the uncertainty. Saying "it might" isn't that helpful for an encyclopedia article
    Do you want a long list of names?
    Sure, if it indicates whose uncertainty it is. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The surface of Ariel is generally neurtral in color." - is neurtral a term I'm unfamiliar with, or is it a typo?

I stopped at "Albedo and color", since I feel there are too many issues for this to become an FA. I suggest you get another peer review. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the specific issues you raised, save the ones we commented on, have been resolved. Serendipodous 12:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still notice some subpar wording for an FAC.

  • As I said above, it seems very unprofessional to say "It might be produced". If there is uncertainty, you should say why the uncertainty exists. For example, "Dr. X theorizes that," or whatnot. You even say "This hypothesis" - but whose hypothesis is it?
  • "The interior of Ariel may be differentiated" - differentiated from what? Why "may be"?
    added an explanation. Serendipodous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, wasn't expecting that! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pressure in the center of Ariel is about 0.3 GPa (3 kbar)" - is that known for sure?
  • Quick question, but what does "leading and trailing hemispheres" mean? You mention it a few times, but I'm confused at to what leading and trailing refer to.
    added an explanation. Serendipodous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably represent" - probably sounds rather wishywashy
  • "an east- or northeasterly direction" - why the "east-"?
    Because some trend east and some trend northeast. They go in many directions, but they tend to go east or northeast. Serendipodous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relatively low-lying smooth areas that must have formed over a long period of time" - why "must have"?
    It says why. "must have formed over a long period of time, given their varying levels of cratering". Added a link to crater counting. Serendipodous 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plains may flood" - maybe you should find a better word choice for flood, since the context is confusing, given my terrestrial notion of what flood is
    The sentence was vague and somewhat unnecessary, so I removed it. Serendipodous 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you mention Ganymede, I think it'd be worth mentioning it's a moon of Jupiter, but no biggie
    done Serendipodous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No other spacecraft has ever visited Uranus (and Ariel), and no mission to Uranus and its moons is planned." - that is unsourced
    reffed Serendipodous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More later. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A general note Hink. We're talking about a moon that has been photographed exactly once, by a decade-old camera, 25 years ago, with only 35% coverage. When that's all you have to go on, there will be uncertainty. It would be foolish to say otherwise. Serendipodous 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. There is a mixture of mdy and dmy dates; also check the references as there is only one mdy date, and all the others are YEAR-MO-DA.
  2. Shouldn't the first sentence read "27 known moons"?
  3. Shouldn't "particularly Alexander..." read "which features in Alexander..."?
  4. I still don't think the reason and origin of the name is clear. I had to read other articles to understand it. I suggest changing "All Uranus's moons are named after characters from the works of both William Shakespeare and Alexander Pope." to "All Uranus's moons are named after characters from the works of William Shakespeare or Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock."
  5. Is there a preposition missing from the final sentence of the "Orbit" section, e.g. "resulting in tidal..."?
  6. In the "Origin and evolution" section, there is a strange mixture of specific statements, such as "195K was reached at the depth of about 31 km", and statements qualified by "probably", "may be" and "likely". Are the definite statements really definite? DrKiernan (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issues mostly resolved. I added "models suggest" to the paragraph. Was one enough, or should it be added again? Serendipodous 19:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments addressed. I'd be inclined to say "reaching estimates of 30 MPa" or similar since "reaching up to" can be read as "possibly reaching" or "definitely reaching" depending on the reader. DrKiernan (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with my usual provisos: I haven't checked images, and I haven't done source checking. I was comfortable with the levels of qualification in the article ("probably", "may" etc), given the subject - indeed i think it is necessary to draw the reader's attention to the limitations of data. I will defer to more experienced editors on the matter of SI units etc, but i was persuaded by Serendip's comment re the consensus in this area. Thanks for the interesting article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ariel_(moon)/archive1&oldid=1089085642"