Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Moons of Saturn/archive1

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 The Rambling Man 19:11, 10 May 2010 [1].

Moons of Saturn

Featured list candidates/Moons of Saturn/archive1

Nominator(s): Ruslik_Zero 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Moons of Saturn for featured list because, in my opinion, it has reached the FL level. This article is about the most complicated satellite system in the Solar System. It is a very important article for the Solar System Project. Ruslik_Zero 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it satisfies the criteria. I've noticed a few very minor issues which I'm going to try and fix myself, or point out on the talk page, in the next few hours. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – a seriously heavyweight piece of work, well done. A quick once-over....

Lead seems lacking in references. For instance, you have a claim like "making the Saturnian system the most diverse in the Solar System" without citation.
I do not usually put references in the lead, as it is just a summary. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this claim cited in the main body of text then? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this particular sentence as it is not really important here. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Particularly notable" according to whom?
According to me, though I do not think this is particular controversial. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial enough for me to question it... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without such words the prose will be dull and uninteresting. As to 'particular notability', books have been written about Titan. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty-four vs thirty eight.
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"all small save one" reads very odd to me...
Replaced "save" with "except". ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"though this is thought to be only a small sample" by whom?
By scientists, who investigated them. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "objective lens"? Worth a link for the non-expert.
It simply means objective. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean to a non-expert? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link, though people usually know what 'objective' is (in a camera, for instance). Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I disagree that "people usually know what 'objective'" when related to a camera means. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for "50 power" - and should that be hyphenated?
Removed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Saturn and the moons Iapetus, Titan, Dione, Hyperion, and Rhea" can you relate the caption to the image, i.e. which is which even if you just say (I), (T) etc.
I expanded caption. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"since been revolutionized" can you quantify/cite this claim?
I do not understand what is the problem here? This statement seems obvious. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for a citation because otherwise this is just your opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" of Charge-coupled devices " small c for Charge.
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"medium size"->"medium-size" or sized.
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"gravitational pull.[17][16]" can you put those in numerical order?
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some captions wikilink the moons, others don't. I'd be consistent.
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Titan's row blue? Remember WP:ACCESS...
But there is the key, and Titan is not only one colored. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACCESS says don't use colour only. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The big table at the end also uses daggers and card suites for them. In the table including only the major moons, only two colours are contrasted, their brightnesses are sufficiently different that they ought to be distinguishable also in black-and-white renderings, and highlighting Titan by colour isn't that vital as its enormous size is also mentioned in the prose. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no need to highlight Titan, and I disagree that the colours are sufficiently different. Remove the highlight. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to make them B&W. Ruslik_Zero 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an advantage to an unkeyed colour scheme which contravenes ACCESS, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed highlight. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2006, four tiny "moonlets" " you link moonlets again, but you've done it already, and you mentioned moonlets earlier in this same section without linking it.
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it F Ring or F-Ring?
F Ring. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5151->5,151
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"albedo of Phoebe" what does that mean?
It means albedo (reflectivity) of Phoebe. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irregular satellites image may contravene WP:ACCESS as well since you only differentiate types of satellite by colour alone.
But I can do nothing about it. It is the only to differentiate them Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So don't use the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yellow color only indicates whether a satellite is named. However names are of named satellites are written, so they do not differ by color alone. Ruslik_Zero 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The unnamed are categorised by white and grey [sic] which you would agree would be difficult to differntiate? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the image. Ruslik_Zero 13:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Phoebe, at 214 km in diameter.." avoid bold linking.
Bolding removed. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Order column (in Safari under Mac OSX) sorts incorrectly.
As does Name.
I made a number of tweaks, it should work now. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like blank cells. Does it mean the info has been forgotten, isn't available, etc?
It means I have nothing to say, though I filled some blanks. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(d)[note 6][note 5] can you make those notes in numerical order?
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same for inclination col.
Should work now. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does ? mean in the table?
I replaced them. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G-ring or G ring?
G Ring. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discoverer col is a weird one. Typically we'd sort by surname on this sort of thing...
I made it unsortable. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"but most likely, none of these moons exist in reality." who said that?
I shortened this sentence. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mix date formats in the references.
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will deal with the remaining issues tomorrow. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose while my comments are outstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is regular satellites in italics?
But irregular satellites is also in italic? Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why x 2? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italics are a fairly common way of introducing new technical terms: for example, it's the default rendering for <dfn> on most browsers. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll give you that, per our MOS, but there are dozens of "technical terms" in this article. Just wondered why two of them were more significant than all the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the other technical terms are linked to some other article which defines them and (IMO) the blue already sufficiently highlights them, but these two aren't, because their full definition is given in this article. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll leave this point open until I review the list in detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think, per Wikipedia:Layout, external links and navigation templates should come last behind notes and references.—Chris!_c/t 06:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be quite correct - and I've tweaked the page to reflect that. Also, Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Iridia (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments An important article, and comprehensive.

In the lead: Second para: "possess" prograde orbits? better would be "move on" (as much as I like the alliteration).
Changed to 'have'. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third para: should be "end of the nineteenth century".
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth para: icy "objects"? A little more clarity here: perhaps "fragments of water ice". They do have to be quite large to hide any silicates.
They are made of almost pure ice, so they have nothing to hide. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are pure ice. No, when you get a moonlet that is a couple hundred metres across, the internal composition is more moon-like, and could involve some silicates. "Objects" just doesn't sound right for a sub-moonlet size ring particle. Iridia (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that composition of moonlets is different from that of ring particles. The latter are composed of pure water ice—there is no evidence of presence of any other material including silicates. So, any attempt to differentiate them is OR. Ruslik_Zero 13:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: they are water ice, so it should be made clear they are water ice. Goodness knows there's enough different ices in this part of the Solar System. (I didn't mean to imply that the phrase in question had to also clarify an are-there-silicates-hiding statement; that was my comment only). Iridia (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the word "icy" because it causes a confusion. It is not important here because the composition of the ring is beyond the scope of this article. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Voyager montage image is a bad idea: it gives an erroneous impression of the relationships and sizes of the inner moons, and the Wikicommons info doesn't have the NASA caption or emphasise that it is an artist's view. Surely Cassini has better multiple-moons images that can show at least three or four moons at once...
Replaced with another image (a scheme of the ring-moon system). Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very nice. Iridia (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an image of the relationships and semimajor axis scale of the inner moons. Stop at Rhea if you like, but since there's also one for the outer moons, it is important. Maybe this, which nicely shows the important relationship of the inner moons to the rings? I suspect Cassini has done one.
Added (see above). Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead it's "Titans", in the naming section it's "titans": which is preferred?
Changed to 'Titans'. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery and naming: Irregular moons is all about ground-based observation (Cassini can't help out there at all). Suggest renaming ground-based observation and irregular moons to remove this contradiction.
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subsections are confusingly titled. The subsection "Irregular moons" is all about ground-based observation. This is confusing, given there is a preceding subsection "Ground-based observation". Iridia (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to rename them. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, guess it's ok. Not a major thing. Iridia (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name of the first section to "Early observations". Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption in Ground-based observation needs a mention of the size of telescope used for that observation, and that Saturn is overexposed to show the moons.
I am not sure that the size of the telescope is useful information. (Other captions do not specify parameters of optics used.) Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this image is illustrating the nature of the image from a ground-based telescope with a similar quality of optics to those available to the early discoverers. Ideally, it would be a scan of one of the plate images. Iridia (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now looks good. Iridia (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Splat" is now named Inktomi: check out here.
Added, thanks for the information. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Eurocommuter if ve could change the labels on the orbital diagram so they aren't hollow-outline text; it goes quite blurry and hard to read.
He stopped editing almost a year ago. Seems unlikely that he will reply. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the image. Ruslik_Zero 13:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot better. Iridia (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify the caption on the orbital diagram to point out the x axis is semimajor axis of the satellite.
Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Iridia (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ground based observations: more explanation on "ring plane crossing event"...
Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Observations by spacecraft: worth mentioning that Rhea's possible-ring discovery makes it the only such moon known in the Solar System?~~ Oops, never mind, that's mentioned down at Rhea.
Irregular moons: "thirteen new moons orbiting Saturn at a great distance, in eccentric and highly inclined orbits to both the equator of Saturn and the ecliptic." Needs a bit of rephrasing so that it clarifies that the eccentricity of the orbit isn't to the ecliptic. ;)
Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is some inconsistency in precision in describing the date of discovery of various moons. Come the Cassini era, exact dates of announcement of discovery are given, then down in Ring moonlets, back to just the year. Might be a personal preference, but the sudden abundance of day-month-year rather than just the year feels a bit overwhelming. (Plus there's the whole issue that announcement and discovery aren't quite the same thing, but am not concerned there). Could these please be trimmed back to just the year throughout the article?
I trimmed dates to year only, except in cases where there were more than one discovery in a given year. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Might want to continue it to the Irregular moons subsection as well. Iridia (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iridia (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Trojan' occasionally goes up and down in case between the lead and the body.
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point: is there some way to make the nice artist's images in the lead shuffle around to remove the large whitespace from the long contents list? Those are pleasing and it would be nice to have them a little larger.
I prefer not to interfere with TOC as this would require using __TOC__ magic word, which may have unintended consequencies.

Iridia (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enceladus: "one of the brightest known objects in the Solar System, with its geometrical albedo reaching than 140%." Missing "greater"?
Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polydeuces in Trojan moons: perhaps clarify "erratic".
Changed to chaotic and wikilinked. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rhea: "depletion of electrons in the plasma wake of Rhea, which forms when the co-rotating plasma of Saturn's magnetosphere passes by" Makes it sound as though the electron depletion forms when the plasma passes by.
Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperion: The mean motion resonance is explained here but was not explained earlier when one was mentioned in Ring moonlets.
Explained. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check "Solar System" has consistent capitalization throughout the article; I caught a few variations, but there might be others.
Checked. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also did a copy-edit. Comments complete. Iridia (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Perhaps add an image of a propeller feature, or a shepherd moon's effect, or both? There are some stunning images of "braided" rings that would look good there, and that section has a large block of unadorned text with plenty of room for an image. Iridia (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added an image of Daphnis. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 27 has redlinked author names. Iridia (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed wikilinks except one for Jacobson—he probably deserves an article. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irregular moons: need a link or explanation of spectral colour, & why it can be used as a grouping characteristic. Should also mention why their albedo is not known & we have to assume it.
The color here is photometric color, not spectral. It is not different from simple color. The albedo is not known because the size is not known, which is not known because the albedo is not known. :)
Yes, sorry, my misphrasing. It really just needs to say: broadband colour is used as a proxy for composition.

:) Size is not known because very small+distant = undetectable in current IR telescopes, AFAIK. Iridia (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a clarification about their size and a note about composition and color. Ruslik_Zero 11:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comprehensive coverage of science in article prose and nicely illustrated; all my comments have now been dealt with. Iridia (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support very informative. Thoroughly researched. Very encyclopedic as well. Sandman888 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.