Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enceladus (moon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Enceladus (moon)

I belive that for it's excelence in acurately describing Saturn's Moon, that this article should be a Featured Article. It is clear that there has been much research into this article, that it is extensive and among the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Tuvas 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sorry, but this is too technical for a non-scientific individual (like me) to get through. The language should be edited to make it more readable by a broad audience. Also, there's somthing wrong with the footnotes - why is the first one an 8? User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what your refering to with the first footnote being #8. I'm seeing it just as would be expected, the first one being 1. ^ a b Celestia Solar System Definition File. Retrieved March 22, 2006.

I understand now, the first seven footnotes are in the infobox. A bit confusing; is there any way to address that? User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, that's how this system works. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If all that info is mentioned later in the article, then you could just cite it there, in the body text—it's doesn't necessarily have to be cited in the infobox. Everyking 07:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, if you want, you can use {{Ref label}} like Rabindranath Tagore uses. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object. The only issue I have is the one paragraph lead. Other than that, it seems fine to me. RyanGerbil10 21:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Full Support. RyanGerbil10 15:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's almost there, but there's still a little work to be done. The lead section neads to be longer, and the named surface features section needs to be expanded and converted to prose. Perhaps the article is a bit complex for non-scientific people, as well, but that's hard for me to deduce because I'm a very technical person and I understand everything. But I'll take the guy's word for it above. bob rulz 22:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean up some of the technical language contained within the article. I guess one problem with working on this subject is that it is a bit difficult for me to distinguish technical language from non-technical. After a re-reading, I have replaced some of the less need technical language with less technical wording. In some places, technical language is used, but is quickly explained for the general audience. I have expanded, a bit, the section on named features. This section is usually standard stuff in most planetary articles, and is rarely expanded upon. I'm not sure how this can be made further into prose, or expanded. I've edited the Cryovolcanism section to make sure that the points that are most important points are not buried deep within the prose of that section. Finally, I have edited some of the imports from the French FA to make them fit with the style of the rest of the article.--Volcanopele 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support now as the article was changed. Oppose :( Sorry, but it's not quite there yet:

• The lead must be expanded per WP:LEAD
• A few sections must be added based on French article that is already FA.
• Some pics must be enlarged and some added (like this one)

Overall, this article deserves FA but needs further work. A lot of extra info can come from French article. I'm gonna put this one on my to-do. Drop in my user talk if interested. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Improvements have been made, and while the work is not done, it had tipped over for me now. Nick Mks 19:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Deferred support. This article has the makings of greatness, but needs to have everything that's in the French article. Prose problems mentioned above seem largely to be the result of too-literal translations of French ("Chronology of Exploration of Enceladus" might work OK in French, but is rather awkward in English. And who exactly decided the French adjective terrestre was best rendered as "Earth-located"? They should be smacked over the head with a copy of LaRousse.

I will be going through this later to try and smooth out some of the post-translation problems. But I think we should put off promoting this until, as per WP:ECHO we have everything the French article does. Daniel Case 21:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And who exactly decided the French adjective terrestre was best rendered as "Earth-located"? Me. And I have a hard head, so go for the Larousse. :)))

I'm sure there is a bunch of things like that left on the page, but that was a first version, and like I said on the talkpage, it needs to be copyedited

needs to have everything that's in the French article. Yes, yes, and yes. However, the section named "Cryovolcanism" is in fact two section in the French version, and they're quite difficult to split. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"needs to have everything in the French article" I should add to grafikm_fr's comments on this issue. In the French article, there is a section on Enceladus' "atmosphere". I believe such a section is now completely unneccessary and is not needed in this article. The atmosphere found in early 2005 was later found to be a volcanic plume, a plume that is fully covered in the cryovolcanism section. Now my French is admittedly a little weak (despite four years of it in high school...), but I think we have sufficiently covered what is said in the French "atmosphere" section. I don't see the need for covering the details of the UVIS stellar occultations.Volcanopele 23:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you are a professional astronomer working on the subject, I believe you :))) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I did mean to add that that section was probably redundant (in fact, the French article could be cleared up on that score).

I like what I'm seeing more now (I appreciate someone noticing, and changing, the commas in numbers to decimal points. Only remaining issue: consistency of unit and system use. There are sentences where "kilometers" and "km" are used within words of each other. All references should be to km.

Also, in some places English equivalents are given in parentheses. Our stylebook, however, says SI only should be used in scientific articles. This seems to be how it's done in the other articles on Saturn's moons, and I believe it should be done thus here. Unless someone has a good reason otherwise. Daniel Case 16:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've converted kilometer references to km (except in the lead section) and convert the prose part to SI only.--Volcanopele 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I don't believe it's too technical. I do think it's a little heavy on images, and as a result, the formatting goes a little awry in places. I would think that, for example, one of either Figure 2a or 2b could go without losing anything. --BillC 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me now. Changed to support. BillC 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC). Add: I see that something's a little amiss around Name & Exploration of Enceladus. I'll assume someone will fix that. BillC 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My first inclination would be to drop 2b since the format of that image doesn't fit with the style of the rest of figures used in the article.--Volcanopele 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• All great. Support! Worldtraveller 09:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Oppose, though more on style grounds than on on the article's contents which look excellent. I hope these things can be corrected because I'd like to support.
  • Length is a bit of a concern at 49kb - try to summarise a bit more. Mercury (planet) is 35kb long and is a featured article so it can certainly be done.
  • Please capitalise section headings in accordance with the style manual.
  • Aesthetic issues - Image:Enceladus orbit 2.jpg covers a region extending well beyond Enceladus's orbit, which appears as empty black space on the small inline version. Could the image be cropped? Also, image placement in the orbit section is cluttered. Over the whole article, several different image widths are used - generally, you should try to use just one common image width.
  • Named surface features is very short, and doesn't read terribly well with repeated mentions of 'Arabian Nights'.
  • 'Name' section is very short, and could be merged with the history of observations section following it.
  • Nothing wrong with citing a paper you've authored or co-authored (I cited one of mine on Cat's Eye Nebula), but I am not sure if citing your own work so many times is desirable - about half the inline citations seem to be to papers co-authored by User:Volcanopele, one of the main contributors to the article. I think this makes the selection of sources seem a little narrow. This may or may not be something that concerns other editors though. Worldtraveller 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A few comments:

• Perhaps 'Named surface features' and 'Name' can be combined. Still wouldn't make for a very long section, but IMHO is most desireable. There really isn't a way to lengthen 'Named Surface Features' without even more redundances.
• The length has always been a concern for me as well, but I admittedly have had trouble decided how to condense the material in the main article so as to put the information in a daughter article. A few sections that could be condensed (and would make perfect sense to condense), would probably be the 'Cryovolcanism' and 'Exploration of Enceladus' sections, I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
• As to being a co-author on a few of the cited papers, unfortunately there isn't much alternative. The ISS paper on Enceladus is a primary resource for information on Enceladus geology and cryovolcanism as seen by Cassini, there are no alternatives to this. I would understand if I had a paper that discussed a small sub-set of Enceladus science, then cited that paper for basic facts. But as it is, I don't see any alternative citations (except perhaps citing press releases if possible).
• Section capitalization fixed
• The image issue has come up before. My first inclination is to remove Figure 2b, but I have just implimented a possible solution. I've enlarged (or shrunk) all images to 250 px wide. This improves their visibility per a reviewer's request above. I have moved and shrunk Figure 2b (now Figure 14) down the 'Interaction with E ring' section, where I think it fits in a better, and with its current size, allows the article to flow better. The issue with Figure 2a, can be resolved by cropping it down to just beyond Dione's orbit, which is mentioned in the article. This should fix that objection.

Thanks for such detailed comments. These really help and hopefully with the fixed I have just added and will add tomorrow, I can change your object vote to a support vote.--Volcanopele 01:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - further comments of mine:

• I think merging those two sections would be great.
• You may find that addressing any concerns about technical language could also help to shorten the article. One part I found that was perhaps over-technical involved the designations of the types of cratered terrain - these designations probably aren't of great interest to a non-astronomer and the section outlining them could be somewhat shortened by omitting them and just saying that there are terrains of varying ages.
• As for papers, much better to cite peer-reviewed papers than press releases - my concern was not really anything serious but just something I thought might perhaps be undesirable. If alternative citations do not exist, then no problems!
• Something I just noticed: Crater counts using Cassini images have suggested ages for Sarandib Planitia of either 170 million years or 3.7 billion years - surely the latter age is a mistake?
• Image placement looks much better now.
• Once the orbit image is cropped and the two short sections dealt with I will certainly support this nomination. Worldtraveller 15:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The orbit image has been cropped and the 'Name' and 'Named surface features' sections have been merged. Regarding the age estimates, currently there are two different theories regarding the impactor flux in the outer solar system. When you apply these theories to the craters counts found by Cassini, you arrive at two vastly different answers. For now, there is no consense on which theory is correct so, both are included here, though I have added a note to explain this difference.--Volcanopele 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps the differences should be noted within the text rather than as a note? Even I was puzzled by it, and I know a lot about astronomy. bob rulz 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support- It's there now. Reyk _YO! 09:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)