Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Moons of Jupiter

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 05:22, 14 September 2008 [1].

Moons of Jupiter edit

Major contributors: user:Nergaal, user:RandomCritic, user:Kwamikagami

I believe that this passes the criteria for a featured list. Comments are welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved suggestion from Crzycheetah 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a withdrawal. There is a peer review for this page that was opened on August 31st, at least wait for some comments over there before nominating this page here. The talk page of this page is a mess as well.--Crzycheetah 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what those two have to do with a FLC. Read the FLC criteria again before giving suggestions. The PR was closed before this nomination was started, and I did not submit the the talkpage for FLC , but the list itself. Nergaal (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I suggest withdrawing and placing this page at PR again; get some comments there, then re-nominate here.--Crzycheetah 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peer reviews only work if someone responds to them. What can someone do if peer reviews go unresponded? Serendipodous 11:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peer Reviews are supposed to be a central place to gather reviews, meaning the person who places an article up for Peer Reviews still has the responsibility of actually finding reviewers; they can do this by contacting people they have worked with, or perusing the Volunteers List at the Peer Review page. The Volunteers List separates people by the topics they are interested in reviewing. Gary King (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Ruhrfisch is doing a damned good job on trying to ensure all PRs have at least one major set of comments within 3 days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to gary: I already contacted people who could have been interested in this at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System even before posting the PR and I still did not get any responses and the PR was open for about 4 days. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Rambling Man's suggestions below have resolved this problem. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead image is too small to make any sense out of it.
  • Caption is a fragment so remove the full stop.
  • "Dozens of much smaller bodies that revolve ...." - not 100% clear that this "smaller" is with reference to the Galilean moons.
  • "starting with the end of the 19th century" - you mean their discovery started at the end of the 19th century?
  • "At least another 14 small bodies have been discovered over the recent years raising the total number moons of Jupiter to 63.."
    • At least 14 more? so is the total 63 or "at least 63"?
    • Why is 63 in bold?
I thought it might be relevant to bold out the number of the moons, but I geuss that is not really consistent. Nergaal (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "span over a wide range" - vary widely?
  • "from the largest object in the Solar System outside the Sun and the eight planets (Ganymede)" - I'd rework as "from Ganymede, the largest object..."
  • "that barely have 1 km in diameter" - "that are barely 1 km (x miles) in diameter" - i.e. reword a bit and convert for imperial unit guys and gals.
  • "3000 times more (almost three years)"
    • 3,000
    • Reinforce earth years here (since you mentioned Jovian days just before).
  • "...that Jupiter spins (retrograde rotation)." - rephrase so it's something like "...spins, a motion referred to as retrograde rotation."
  • Why is Galilean moons in the caption in italics?
  • "...in 1974,[11] By the .." -full stop needed.
  • "time Voyagers reached Jupiter, a number of 13 moons" - explain Voyagers for the non-expert, and "a number of" is redundant.
  • "but lost until 2000." - needs explanation.
  • "and average 3 kilometres in diameter, with the largest having barely 9 km across" - average of 3km (and convert), and "largest being just 9km (convert) across"
  • "The Galilean moons and their orbits around Jupiter." - no need for italics or full stop.
  • "and instead being referred in the" - and instead they were referred to in... as..
  • Avoid "etc."
  • " in the 20th, " 20th what?
  • "..while the rest of the moons, numbered, usually..." - "...moons, usually numbered..."
  • "overwhelming majority" - peacock/pov
  • What is IAU? Expand it before using the abbreviation.
  • "V-XIII" - use the en-dash for ranges, not the hyphen.
  • " from XXXIV (Euporie) on are..." - on is redundant.
  • "Some asteroids share the same names as moons of Jupiter: 9 Metis, 38 Leda, 52 Europa, 85 Io, 113 Amalthea, 239 Adrastea. Two more asteroids previously shared the names of Jovian moons until spelling differences were made permanent by the IAU: Ganymede and asteroid 1036 Ganymed; and Callisto and asteroid 204 Kallisto." - no references for these.
Refs for renaming? Because the names speak for themselves why there is a "name conflict". Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groups section could do with being made more prose than bullet points.
But this is a list, and grouping by bullet points presents the information in a more eloquent manner. Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not to worry too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you say anywhere how long a Jovian day is in terms of Earth days?
The point with the Jovian days was to say that they spin faster than the planet itself, not that they take x hours. I guess it is not obvious what I meant to say so I am open to suggestions. Nergaal (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just worth putting into context what a Jovian day is in Earth hours I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this article in BritEng (disk) or USEng (favorite)? Whatever you choose, be consistent.
  • Order citations numerically unless there's a really good reason not to.
I am not sure which ones are you referring to. If you are talking about the ones in the table, then the latter have a lower number because they were already used in the text (i.e. this is what reflist does). Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant [27][17][28] - you can reorder the references in the wiki markup so it says [17][27][28]. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... is "tight",..." - why in quotes? who said this?
  • "are so far believed to be each isolated in their own group" - doesn't read well at all.
how about now? Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pronunciacion" is not English.
  • Is this pronunciation guide IPA? It doesn't say.
The key right below pronunciation provides a link to the the IPA for English. Isn't that enough? Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " from shortest to longest" - not when it's resorted - drop this sentence.
  • Caption "...The position on the vertical axis indicates its orbital inclination—he satellites..." - he satellites? Plus this caption is way too long.
how about now? Nergaal (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to bold Io, Ganymede in the table. If you want to obey WP:COLOR, I'd add an asterisk or dagger on these.
is the dagger now ok? Nergaal (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is. But the grey cells should have the same WP:COLOR rule applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the table on colorblind-mimickers and to me it is fairly obvious that the backgrounds are split into: white, light grey, darker gray, darked gray with daggers. Why isn't this enough? Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "127 690" - should be "127,690" etc.
  • Diameter is usually a single value - so "60×40×34" etc needs explaining.
  • Why is discovered left aligned while eccentricity right aligned and diameter central aligned?
is there a quick way to align all the values in a column without having to go through all the 63 entries per column? Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember off the top of my head. I hate tables! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sortable tables need to relink wikilinks on each occasion as they could be first in the list depending on how they're sorted.
grrr.... I just unlinked them because I thought reviewer would comment about overlinking... Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Order and Label, what do they mean?
text says that they are ordered by semi-major axis. label is somewhat explained in the text. The problem is that I don't know how to make these clear without having a huge title in those columns. Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes could be used for this purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a negative orbital period needs explanation for non-experts, and should there be a space between the minus sign and the value e.g. - 1077.02?
one of the two references in the article explains that it is retrograde. I had that as a note, not a ref, but then, the notes section would have a single entry... Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does ? mean in the Group?
not surely known. how should I say that so I keep the column tight? Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add it to the key? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all 5 external links necessary?
This many comments exemplifies why peer review is a recommended approach before FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I see that it's been cleaned up a bit from the comments above, but my first thought was "who did this page"? Excellent work; hope to see more of you here! Tony (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). Excellent work. Just a few comments:

  • "Only 8 of Jupiter's moons are regular satellites, with prograde and nearly circular orbits that are not greatly inclined with respect to Jupiter's equatorial plane." I find "only" a bit POV.
  • "Both physical and orbital characteristics of the moons vary widely." How about: "The moons' physical and orbital characteristics vary widely."
  • "The practice was that newly discovered moons of Jupiter to be named after lovers and favorites of the mythological Jupiter (Zeus), and since 2004, also after their descendants." Missing a word, I think.
  • "This is currently the most of any planet in the Solar System, but additional tiny, undiscovered moons may exist." Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Precise language, "currently" is not preferred. Use "as of so-and-so year..."

Great work overall. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these awkwardnesses. I assume the only was used as a introductory word because of number, but numbers below 10 are to be spelled anyways. The others should sound better also. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2008 (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_list_candidates/Moons_of_Jupiter&oldid=1126721865"