Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of moons

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 20:31, 29 November 2008 [1].

List of moons[edit]

I think this list meets all the FL criteria and is comprehensively referenced. If it does pass, I think User:RandomCritic and User:Mike Peel should receive credit.Serendipodous 22:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • We're moving FLC away from "This is a list of"-type leads, so please change it to be more attractive.
  • Remove the self-reference "see asteroid moons and Trans-Neptunian moons." – it wouldn't make sense when printed on paper, would it?
  • "See Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons for more information." – same as above
  • "These are not listed here; see List of asteroid moons." – same

Gary King (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed. Serendipodous 07:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this be better as a long sortable list, with a field for planet? The small seperate tables (with only one or two entries) don't pass the attracitvness criteria for me.Yobmod (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't really work, because each moon is ordered first by its planet and then by its distance from the planet.Serendipodous 13:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the reasons I was hesitant to submit this as a featured list when I was working on it. There are a number of other lists of moons scattered around wikipedia, ordered by different things, and there are also lists on some of the "Moons of ..." pages for some of the planets. See Template:Solar System moons (compact). These ideally need to be unified somehow, or at least better organized, which is a task that put me off working on this list. Mike Peel (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are being organised. That's what I'm working on. The Moons of... articles are being promoted to featured status and incorporated into planetary subtopics of the Solar System featured topic. But the FT reviewers also demanded a subtopic for featured lists, so I've been going around attempting to bulk up and consolidate the lists. Serendipodous 15:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The distance can also be used to sort, no? And if the entries are written in planet then distance order, this is how the table would initially present itself anyway. But the combined sortable list would have the advantage of letting readers easily see what the 10 biggest are etc.15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, but it would effectively render List of moons by diameter meaningless. Serendipodous 17:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I've combined it. I'll have to redirect List of moons by diameter here now. Serendipodous 22:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice! I support in terms of usefulness and attractiveness (not really looked at other things though).Yobmod (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The last sentence in the lead snakes confusingly; it implies the telescopes are irregular.
  • "Note that for a brief time in 1974, Mercury was thought to have a moon." Could this be "For a brief time in 1974, however, Mercury was thought to have a moon" or something similar? There's no need for the prose to be overly dry.
  • "2002 AA29[4];" ← move citation to after punctuation.
  • "however these do not count as moons as they do not orbit Earth." I think this would sound nicer rejigged as "however, since they do not orbit Earth, they are not considered moons."
  • General question: is it normal to write out long numbers like you do (123 456)? I've only ever seen 123456, 123,456 and 123.456 before.
  • "putting the maximum size of any other satellites at 0.9 km" ← is this in diameter? I'm probably just being a layperson here.
  • Maybe you should point out that Ceres, Haumea and Makemake aren't standard planets.
  • "with two isolated in space" is unclear.
  • Jupiter has a nice little introduction, but none of the other planets do afterwards. Saturn, for instance, should surely have one, if not all the others.
  • The text on Makemake is unclear to the layman.
  • "but is expected to be of order 100 km" is unclear.
  • Am I supposed to know what "Other TNOs" refers to?

I hope these comments help. Seegoon (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your minor issues. Still working on removing the number spaces. The intros and distinguishing planets from dwarf planets will have to wait until it's decided whether or not this article is going to be made into a single list, because if that happens the entire article will have to be rewritten anyway. Serendipodous 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I don't envy that job. Support. Seegoon (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all: The "Moons by planet" section is unfinished, but it is currently very late where I am, and I am going to bed. Serendipodous 23:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Finished. Serendipodous 09:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Useful list, well sourced and very interesting to read. Good job all those who contributed and put in the time to make it. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very nice, readable, interesting, and sourced list. Reywas92Talk 16:35, 27 November 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/List_of_moons&oldid=1079291383"