Talk:Regular moon

Regular moon has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 4, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Martian moons

What about Martian moons? They are neither listed nor discussed in either Regular moons and Irregular moons. noychoH (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Regular moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ArkHyena (talk · contribs) 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pencilsforall (talk · contribs) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've read your article and I am working on comments. I'll add a table with comments and notes when I finish the review.

I think this is a really interesting article and you've done a great job! I learned so much by reading this article! My main concern so far is whether the article is written for a broad audience. It's clearly written for knowledgeable readers, but it's unclear to me that it follows the WP:ONEDOWN suggestion. You might want to consider reviewing suggestions for making technical articles understandable WP:TECHNICAL. I reviewed the Hemmingway App and calculated the Flesch Kincaid grade level which both suggest that the reading level may be too difficult for a broad audience. I'll have specific suggestions and comments after I finish with spot checking references and so on. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written, although the writing style could be simplified at a later date to allow a broader audience to understand the information. The article is written for an educated audience but the writing style could be modified without substantial changes to the content. I think the most important modifications would be in providing background information for complex topics and defining terms.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No concerns here.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good references.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	References and citations are great. I did a spot check of nine sources using a random number generator to select what to check. I have one concern: Source 29 This source seems to suggest that the question of how Io's atmosphere is maintained is unresolved, but in the article it is listed as evidence that Io's atmosphere comes from freezing of outgassed materials. See last line of abstract. This isn't my specialty, but this seems to be unresolved as of now.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No concerns about original research or travels to moons.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Seems to be all good here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Really nice coverage of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Nicely compact and on-topic. Could be expanded to make accessible to broader audience.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	All good.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Nice media and recent revisions are really helpful.
	7. Overall assessment.	Looks great!

2b: addressed; it turns out source 30 also made mention of this. Elaborated as ... though it remains uncertain whether volcanic outgassing or sublimation is the dominant supporter of Io's atmosphere. -Ark

Sounds good! Pencilsforall (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.