Talk:Cryovolcano/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: ArkHyena (talk · contribs) 05:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. A bit out of my wheelhouse, but it looks like a fun read. I should get to it over the weekend! Fritzmann (message me) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

No citation is given for the informal name "ice volcano", and it doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the body

Cited to this[1] Space.com article to showcase usage. The citation is in a new section dedicated to etymology and terminology -Ark

"common amongst" perhaps to "common on"?

Done -Ark

"As such, cryovolcanism is important to the geological histories of these worlds" seems overly vague, and I don't really learn anything from it as a reader. A bit more detail as to what impact it has on the history is probably warranted

Elaborated as: As such, cryovolcanism is important to the geological histories of these worlds, constructing landforms or even resurfacing entire regions. -Ark

Is there a reason that only the last sentence of the lead is cited? I notice you discuss the internal heat aspect in the Pluto/Charon section; can it be stated more explicitly and in more detail there so as to remove the need for references in the lead (i.e. move the refs to the body and expand on the idea there)

Moved down to the Other dwarf planets subsection -Ark

Mechanisms

"A major challenge in models of cryovolcanic mechanisms..." so do we not actually know what the mechanisms are? It would be good to have an explanation and make it clear whether these statements are hypotheses or observations, as I had some difficulties discerning between the two in the text

Tried to clarify better that the majority of our understanding about cryovolcanic mechanisms remains hypothetical -Ark

"It has been proposed" by whom?

Reworded -Ark

Some of this first paragraph, like the piece about ammonia, seems like it would belong better in the Composition section

Done, reorganized -Ark

"whence cryomagma may ascend from" --> "from which cryomagma may ascend"

Done -Ark

The second paragraph of the Reservoirs section exemplifies my previous concern, does the "may" mean that it does happen that way as well, or that is hypothesized to maybe be able to happen that way?

Rewritten -Ark

The one sentence of the Composition section is not cited

Changed to Water is expected to be the dominant component of cryomagmas. Besides water, cryomagma may contain additional impurities, drastically changing its properties. per source 5: There are good reasons to believe that water is the dominant component of cryomagmas on most icy bodies. and ... aqueous cryomagmatic liquids on icy bodies are unlikely to be pure. A range of possible additives exist... -Ark

The table in the Composition section should probably be turned into plaintext, or its content should at least be summarized in plaintext

Summarized in plaintext, opting to keep the table as I would argue it's still a good way to quickly get info about some basic properties -Ark

Types

I think this section would be better placed in front of Mechanisms

Done -Ark

"expected to be driven by the exsolvation of dissolved volatile gasses as pressure drops whilst cryomagma ascends" whew this is a bit much for me as a layman. Is there another way to say exsolvation at least? I think I get the rest of it but that word is a sticking point

Reorganized this entire section, emphasized that exsolution basically means fizzing up -Ark

"No instances of active effusive cryovolcanism have been observed" again, this would be a good preface, and the rest of the material in the paragraph should be qualified with that disclaimer. From my first time reading it, I get the impression that effusive cryovolcanism is an established process we've observed in action, not the hypothetical mechanism for structures that we've seen and assume are a result of it

Moved to 2nd sentence of the subsection -Ark

Observations

Years for these observations would be really helpful; for example: when did the Dawn orbiter arrive at Ceres?

Dates added throughout -Ark

"impact-induced upwelling" is this another type of cryovolcanism that should be mentioned in the mechanisms or types sections? I don't recall there being mention of impacts spurring an eruption

Described the role of impacts in cryovolcanism in the Eruption subsection -Ark

"may indicate that Ceres had a subsurface ocean in its past" how so? I'm not making the connection here

Clarified the relation between Ceres's geological activity and its potential subsurface ocean -Ark

"which are hypothesized" by whom?

Reworded -Ark

First sentence of Europa section has some grammar issues that make it difficult to parse

Split into two sentences: Europa receives enough tidal heating from Jupiter to sustain a global liquid water ocean. Its surface is exceedingly young... -Ark

"dense web of lineae" what are lineae?

Reworded as Its most striking features, a dense web of linear cracks and faults termed lineae... -Ark

Link or explain subduction

Linked and explained -Ark

"few, if any ,..."

Done -Ark

The timeline in the second paragraph of Europa should be more detailed. When is "in the past", when did the Hubble telescope "hint" at cryovolcanism, and how recent is "more recent"?

Dates given -Ark

What observations did Hubble make that provided evidence of cryovolcanoes?

Elaborated as ... detected columns of excess water vapor up to 200 kilometers high... -Ark

What is "chaos terrain"?

Clarified as where the crust appears especially disrupted... -Ark

"has been interpreted" by whom?

Reworded -Ark

What is a "cryovolcanic cone"? This is its first mention, and it is not explained elsewhere

Explained in the new Etymology and terminology section: cones (analogous to cinder cones and spatter cones) -Ark

Where is Argadnel Regio on Europa? Is there a wikilink that would explain this, like a list of geographical features?

Unfortunately, it has no page and the List of geological features on Europa#Regiones only gives coordinates. Based on coordinates given by the GPN[2], probably the most specific that can be done is ... a region in Europa's southern hemisphere. -Ark

"which have been identified" by whom and when?

Reworded; also elaborated on how a cryovolcanic origin for the paterae are still inconclusive -Ark

In the Enceladus section, you mention "feeding rings"... this seems like a really important part of cryovolcanism that isn't elaborated on at all. How do they feed the rings? What does that process look like? Are all outer planet rings a result of cryovolcanism? I would at least include a paragraph on this, probably in the Mechanisms section

I'm unsure if there should be much elaboration beyond what's already covered in Enceladus's article and Rings of Saturn#E Ring (which I've now linked as "further information" for the subsection), since this is a unique case and does not affect Enceladus's geology all that much beyond making it brighter. If you disagree though, let me know -Ark

"form from maar-like eruptions" what is a maar-like eruption?

Linked and explained as forming by explosions of boiling subsurface liquid as it is rapidly heated by magma (in this case, cryomagma) -Ark

References

I notice that you give page numbers for some references, and not others. Is there a reason for this, and can you standardize it?
Yeah, looking at several of the references, a whole paper is given without page numbers for the claim quite often. I would really rather not read a 27-page article to hunt down the specific claims, so page numbers or at least ranges are going to be needed for some of these longer refs, like #2. Once these are given and the majority of the prose issues are taken care of, I'll do a careful reference sweep

I've gone through and added page numbers for some other sources. For those I haven't, the source is either short or the sourced material can be found in the abstract and/or introduction. I may have missed some, so do let me know if there are any long sources I've missed -Ark

General

I notice there is no discussion of the history of discovery of cryovolcanoes. When were they first hypothesized, who coined the term, and when were they confirmed?

I detailed the origin and etymology of the term in a new Etymology and terminology section. I'm unsure as if much can be written on the history of cryovolcanism beyond growing observations, as cryovolcanism is a relatively new phenomena in planetary science -Ark

There are weasel phrases throughout the article. I've pointed out some of them, but there are many more that need to be addressed
There are a few instances of a "-" being used for a range of numbers, instead of an en-dash ("–")

Should be fixed! -Ark

Can any of the images in the gallery be moved to more appropriate locations within the article, to more effectively illustrate it?

Possibly, though I'm unsure as to which. I wanted to have a gallery so that there could be a single compilation of a variety of probable cryovolcanic structures across the Solar System without cluttering the main body. -Ark

While the prose is generally very well written, it suffers from not explaining terms used in this very narrow subfield. I've pointed out a few, but niche technical terms need to be either wikilinked or explained, and preferably both are done

Please drop me a ping once you've finished with these comments so I can knock out the source review! I apologize for the delay, I've had a few other projects going on and finals are taking up quite a bit of time. Good luck! Fritzmann (message me) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann: No worries! Apologies from my own end for the long delay, I hadn't seen this for a few days and it came up right around my own finals too. I've addressed all of the points above (with comments), so hopefully the most glaring issues should be out of the way now! ArkHyena (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArkHyena: massive, massive improvements! The structure and flow of the article is much better now, and the terminology section at the start is particularly useful. Thank you for adding some page numbers as well, I was able to validate the content of refs 2, 5, 12, and 16. With no source-text integrity issues I can determine, I'll be passing the article in just a moment. Congratulations! Fritzmann (message me) 14:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]