Wikipedia:Featured article review/Enceladus/archive1

Enceladus

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

• Featured article review/Enceladus/archive1

Notified: Drbogdan, WolfmanSF, JorisvS, Volcanopele, BatteryIncluded, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy

WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been tagged for update in the atmosphere section, which is very short. Readers are directed to a sub-article Atmosphere of Enceladus, but it seems to contain all the same information as the main article, and so appears somewhat pointless. In my opinion, the gallery section does not add much to the article, and a link to the commons category should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Review section

comments from Graeme Bartlett

• I am looking into this. There do not seem to be many more writings on the "atmosphere", and most do not distinguish it from the plumes. I found one thesis modelling the atmosphere, but does a thesis count as a reliable source?
• One topic missing that I see quite a few papers about is the effect of Endeladus on the magnetosphere, but its own and that of Saturn.
• Another is related, the auroral hiss[1].
• referencing improvements required:
  • The Blondel, Philippe reference needs expanding with links.
  • Satellites of the Outer Planets: Worlds in their own right needs an ISBN.
  • "Cracks on Enceladus Open and Close under Saturn's Pull" has author Bill Steigerwald
  • 56 and 67 have a bibcode but no doi (needs a check)
  • Taubner R.S.; Leitner J. J.; et al needs some kind of link and et al should be expanded a bit.
  • "Ocean Within Enceladus May Harbor Hydrothermal Activity" should have publisher which is astrobiology, but this is a NASA press release, so there is probably a better source.
  • "Our Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water" is also a NASA press release
  • "'Jets' on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Actually Be Giant Walls of Vapor and Ice" needs author= Charles Q. Choi date=6 May 2015 publisher=Space.com
  • "A Hot Start on Enceladus" needs date March 14, 2007
  • "Atmosphere on Enceladus" needs standard format on date.
  • "Enceladus Life Finder" needs fixing, internal title is "ENCELADUS LIFE FINDER: THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN A HABITABLE MOON" authors are J.I. Lunine, J.H. Waite, F. Postberg L. Spilker, and K. Clark, this is part of 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can do something about the references tomorrow. As for theses, I'd say they need some external support (in the vein of other sources citing them) to work in and of itself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  Update, done with a few notes:

  • 56 and 67 does not seem to have a doi that I can find.
  • The NASA press releases are the sources of the images in question; I've found an article on Nature here about the hydrothermal activity in the ocean.

  I'll see about the auroral hiss and the magnetospheric effects later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I have struck the confirmed fixed refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  Replaced the press releases with that Nature citation too. The atmosphere will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Most images are missing alt= text. Please read WP:ALT before adding text though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• More checking word by word: (using tr "][()\t,.:;\"" " "| tr " " "\n" | sort -u )
  • There is inconsistent date format. Sometimes we have yyyy-mm-dd form, but it is mostly month dd, yyyy. This applies to access dates and publication dates. eg: 2007-04-15 2008-11-27 2011-12-17 2014-04-03 2014-04-04 2014-04-27 2014-12-17 2015-04-09 2015-04-15 2015-05-08 2015-09-17
  • There are a couple of nonprinting characters in the dimensions in the infobox "513.2 × 502.8 × 496.6" (surrounding the first and second ×) (these are halfwidth spaces, not a serious issue)
  • Inconsistent ISBN13, we have 978-1-4020-9216-9 978-1-4244-7350-2 and 9783540376835 (the last form is best)
  • Cassini‍‍ '​‍s has a non printing character before apostrophe (due to use of {{'s}})
  • Caption at internal structure " mantle/yellow and core/red" style should be " mantle (yellow) and core (red)"
  • infobox mean radius uses Earths and Moons - probably should be Earth's and Moon's
  • E-ring should be E-Ring
  • We have "g/cm³" (2 uses) as well as using superscript 3 g/cm³ (1 use, but I thought MOS said this one).
  • Two uses of wrong spelling: kilometres (It was convert template doing it, spelling mistake avoided by using |sp=us
  • Using m/s² in info box instead of superfixed 2
  • Abbreviated journal titles like "Orig Life Evol Biosph" should be expanded fully.
  • "Saturn׳s" has non-standard apostrophe
  • " —called libration— " uses spaces as well as m-dash (should be no space?)
  • I suspect " UV–green–near IR images" uses the wrong kind of dash. It is an adjectival form. (actually it appears to use –) (others use / or ,)

• Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  I think I got the issues except the inconsistent the dates (MOSUNITS does indicate the superscript standard; probably because it's easier to create that code than to create the superscripted number itself); will need a check on non-printing characters.

  • Striking corrected (notice I added more issues after you started work) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Did some more edits to resolve these issues, except for the dash and nonprinting character edits. I didn't find any "kilometres" in the source; I guess a template is causing these issues. Now, for the atmosphere I've to confess that other than using Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chilean volcano) as templates I've never worked with FAs; is the atmosphere section of Pluto plus the magnetosphere and auroral hiss a good template to follow?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think so, yes. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another inconsistency is the possessive form: Enceladus' versus Enceladus's. I prefer the second, but is that right? Many of the sources use Enceladus' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally prefer the first; at least to me it was indicated to be proper grammar. I'll do some other work here in about a week, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You might like to read MOS:POSS and Apostrophe, especially the section Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe, particularly sub-section "Basic rule (singular nouns)". It seems that a lot depends upon how the possessive form is pronounced. Corinne (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne

1) In this sentence in the lead:

• Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging from old, heavily cratered regions to young, tectonically deformed terrains that formed as recently as 100 million years ago, despite its small size.

the phrase "despite its small size", because it comes at the end, sounds like it might apply only to the last clause, so is a little puzzling (if it does apply only to the last clause, I don't understand the connection between small size and relatively recent deformation of terrain). I believe you mean it to apply to the first clause, "Enceladus has a wide range of surface features". If so, I recommend putting the phrase at the beginning of the sentence:

• Despite it small size, Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging...

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:

• Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until the two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

You haven't mentioned Voyager spacecraft before this, so saying "the two Voyager spacecraft" assumes that your readers know what they are. I recommend removing "the". You can, and I guess you do, go into more detail about the two spacecraft later, and who's to say there won't be more in the future?

• Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

3) The last sentence in the lead is:

• Its resonance with Dione excites its orbital eccentricity, which tidal forces damp, resulting in tidal heating of its interior, and offering a possible explanation for the geological activity.

(a) I was confused by the clause, "which tidal forces damp". It is true that "tidal" is an adjective, so "forces" ought to be a noun; however, "damp" is more often an adjective or noun than a verb, so "forces" jumped in as a verb. It took a re-reading to realize that "damp" was the verb to the phrase "tidal forces". To a non-scientist, even one who knows what the verb "to damp" means, the combination of "tidal forces" and "damp" is so unusual that it is hard to comprehend. I'm wondering if another verb could be found other than "damp" to make this more comprehensible for the average reader. Perhaps "suppress", or "counteract"?

(b) Also, for the average reader, the word "tidal" suggests, of course, "tides", which in turn suggests the presence of a large body of water (or other liquid). The previous paragraph mentioned "a subsurface ocean of liquid water", but no connection between the tides and that body of water was made. If the "tidal forces" are related in some way to the subsurface body of water, that connection should be made clear. Since no surface body of water (or liquid) is mentioned here, the reader will look for it later on. In the section "Orbit and rotation", "tidal deformation" is mentioned in the second paragraph, but no body of liquid is mentioned. If these "tidal forces" and "tidal deformation" have nothing to do with a body of liquid, that ought to be made clear, also.

4) The first two sentences in Enceladus#Orbit and rotation are:

• Enceladus is one of the major inner satellites of Saturn. It is the fourteenth satellite when ordered by distance from Saturn, and orbits within the densest part of the E Ring, the outermost of Saturn's rings.

I think the wording of the clause "when ordered by distance from Saturn" could be made a little clearer for the average WP reader. "When ordered" sounds like "ordered from a catalog", "ordered in a restaurant". I think it would be clearer if it were worded something like this:

• It is the fourteenth satellite in order of distance from Saturn, and it orbits..."

5) In the second paragraph in "Orbit and rotation", can you put the conversion so that distances in miles are given?

– Corinne (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2) Without "the", it suggests that there have been more than two Voyager spacecraft, which is untrue. Any possible futute Voyager 3 would be crystal ball.

I don't agree. Saying just "until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby" is just introducing the spacecraft since you haven't mentioned them before this. It does not suggest that there were, or will be, more. It is really not good to use the definite article until you have first introduced or mentioned them. Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

3) a) I think saying it in the passive does the trick. b) Tidal forces also act on a solid body. The effect is only much stronger if they act on a liquid. For example, solid Mimas has been tidally locked to Saturn; in fact, none of the small regular moons of Saturn are known not to be tidally locked.

I have copy-edited the article based on several other points. --JorisvS (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Atmosphere section

DrKay's original concern was with the Atmosphere section, which I just removed. I'm not totally sure about it, so see my rationale on the talk page and let me know if you agree. A2soup (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As we've established, it was not possible to expand the section and I think short sections should be merged into others, which is essentially what has been done here with the material positioned in the Cryovolcanism section. DrKay (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. The prose is poor, using an unnecessarily repetitive and unidiomatic style that is also indicative of structural problems in the article. Because relevant material is deliberately excluded, the subject is not placed in its context rendering the topic non-comprehensive and difficult to follow without following links to other articles. Attempts to address these problems are reverted. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If by "relevant material is deliberately excluded", you mean the atmosphere apart from the plumes, I have to disagree. That's more a case of "relevant material is not yet known". No argument on the other points, though. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I mean for example that the article says Enceladus is "sixth-largest", "one of the major inner" and "fourteenth" moon of Saturn, but we are not told how many moons there are or how many of those are "major inner" ones. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem there is that Saturn has a difficult-to-define number of moons. There are spherical moons, but Moons of Saturn gives 62 moons with confirmed orbits, of which 53 are named. Of course, what's a moon or not is ultimately subjective - the rings are made of zillions of "moons", and how can we define when a chunk is big enough to be a moon? Saying Enceladus is "sixth-largest" with no absolute number specified is actually an elegant solution to this problem. I have addressed the other two concerns you raised by given content for "one of the major inner" and removing "fourteenth". Do you have any other prose concerns? A2soup (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

• Change all ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 (I only see one) using this site as per WP:ISBN

  Done. There were four (I have a little script). --Mirokado (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

FARC section

The instability leads me to move here. Concerns about prose, which can be difficult to balance between exactness and accessibility in these articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What "instability" do you mean? There was one recent not-quite-edit-war (both editors made varied changes that ultimately led to improvement, rather than flat reverts). Also, can you point out specifically what prose concerns you? A2soup (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that they are not edit-warring does not mean there is consensus. Prose is a pretty major issue to try and get right and moving it here means we're not closing this as a "keep", that is all. Further work and continue before editors comment on whether the article should retain or lose FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Lack of consensus is not a stability issue if the article text is stable. But I'm more interested in what specifically the prose issues you see are - I would love to try to address them. A2soup (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: Calling DrKay about these prose issues.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay, Graeme Bartlett, and Corinne: Where do things stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

All the minor issues are fixed, but my major issue still remains, which is incomplete coverage on the topic of its effect on Saturn including auroral hiss and its magnetosphere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Could we perhaps have declarations from A2soup, BatteryIncluded, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and JorisvS? Thanks. I have no comments on the prose but am not competent to comment on the comprehensiveness, which is the remaining concern. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• The issues mentioned by Graeme can probably be easily fixed with some sources and text from them. No opinion on prose, my English skills are not sufficient to comment on them.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• The science aspect seems to be updated. I have no opinion on the prose. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Default keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no explicit delist declarations. DrKay (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any problems that are sufficient to warrant delisting. Still one of our hihgest quality articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Still worth having this as a FA. Many improvements have been made as part of this effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been keep, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)