Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Triton (moon)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:58, 26 February 2008.

[edit] Triton (moon)

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone substantial revision since becoming a Good Article. Serendi^podous 17:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although I would still like to see the last two issues get addressed. Thank you. Comment—I think this article is fairly close to FA, but it may need some editorial polish in a few places. I made some changes, but I think more people need to look it over. I also have a few comments:
  • There should be a disambiguation link at the top.
  • The pronunciation section at the start of the lead is an unsourced mixture of entries. I think there should just be one entry and it should be referenced. The greek name is not covered in the body, so why is it in the lead?
  • "especially in the mantle" is redundant with the earlier text in the same paragraph of the lead.
  • "and produced better mirrors in 1844" seems to dangle at the end of a sentence. Perhaps the relevance of this could be clarified?
  • The following sentence seems like it should be down in the exploration section: "During the Voyager 2 encounter, Triton's south pole was facing the Sun." Voyager 2 had not been mentioned prior to that point, so the entry is unexplained.
  • The text uses the word "riven" (from "rive", to rend asunder) in talking about the troposphere. Should that be "driven"?
  • The article makes two comparisons of the moon's surface area to the land area of the Earth. (See "Physical characteristics" and "Surface features".) I think only one of those is needed.
  • I don't think a third explanation of retrograde orbits is really necessary down in the "Observation and exploration" section. I.e. the "I.e." can be removed as redundant. That section starts with two single-sentence paragraphs that should be merged or expanded.
  • Can the "Temp category InfoboxPlanet-Magnitude" category be removed? It looks messy.

  Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed most of your issues. The only dictionary I have doesn't supply an IPA for Triton; I suppose it just assumes it's self-evident. Still, none of the other featured moons have reffed pronunciations, so I suppose that's OK. All the Greek-named astronomical objects have Greek spellings next to their names, so the convention appears to be set. I meant "riven", but yes, "driven" works too :-) I can't remove the temp category, since it doesn't appear in the edit window. Serendi^podous 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I've had some debates over the topic of referencing the pronunciation and I think it does need to be included. It has been let slide for a while now and I'm bothered by how much the pronunciation entries seems to keep changing. I tried inserting a referenced (Merriam-Webster Online) pronunciation in one of the articles and it promptly got reverted, so I'm being a little insistent on this score. =) Having two pronunciation codes present instead of one doesn't help the case any. I'd like there to be a solid reference that we can compare against.—RJH (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. How about: http://dictionary.reference.com/ ? It gives IPA pronunciation keys for American English, although it doesn't appear to match the entry in this article.—RJH (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com appears to represent the schwa by omitting a letter, whereas the standard IPA representation for a schwa is [ə]. Not really a good idea to have two different forms of schwa on Wikipedia. Serendi^podous 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming by "standard" IPA representation you mean the unreferenced one on wikipedia?—RJH(talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean IPA as it defines itself. see here. Note the symbol for the schwa.Serendi^podous 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• support--jskellj - the nice devil 12:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• weak support - Looks to fulfil criterina, but the only issue I am not hugely happy with is prose. I've tweaked a bit and shifted my support into the net positive as I can't see any glaring examples but an overall feeling it should be massaged a bit more. There is some repetition of words in places but i concede it is difficult to address without losing ambiguity. I'll look a bit more later but I think we're over the line here :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
• Support - In my opinion the article furfills all the FA criteria. Nergaal (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I have made some minor edits, (suggestions),[1] during my reading of this fine article. --GrahamColm^Talk 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Notes. Please attend to punctuation on image captions (distinction between sentence fragments and full sentences) per WP:MOS#Captions. I am not aware of a guideline to italicize, for example, Voyager 2; please clarify (see Apollo 8 and WP:ITALICS). Unclear on the bolding in the notes; pls clarify. Please ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the endashes in the footnotes; this is an easy fix that keeps appearing on astronomy articles. Please provide publishers on all sources (example, personal website, Dave Jewitt (2005). Binary Kuiper Belt Objects. Retrieved on June 24, 2007. ) This is another recurring issue; for example, what makes that author/personal webpage a reliable source? There is no consistent method of formatting citations (see 2c); some dates are linked, others aren't, and there is variable use of WP:ITALICS in the citations (books and periodicals should be italicized). Please see WP:CITE regarding mixed citation sytles and methods. What makes scienceagogo.com a reliable source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why some dates are linked and others are not, since they both use exactly the same template. Still, in the process of manually correcting them. Done my best also to cater to Wikipedia's Lewis-Carroll-esque obsession with dashes, which I can only assume was established purely to torment FA nominators, since it has no other discernible purpose whatsoever. (Sorry. After three dash-corrections, I had to say that) Serendi^podous 12:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't "use exactly the same template"(s), and that's why this problem continues to show up in these articles. Have a look at WP:CITE#Citation templates, where this is discussed. The citation and WP:CITET templates have completely different formatting: for that reason they shouldn't be mixed in the same article, and they are mixed here. The difference in formatting is not only in the dates, it's the entire bibilio style. They use different biblio styles, so shouldn't be mixed. To fix it, the citation templates should be switched to WP:CITET templates (since they seem to be the most oft used), and then you'll have consistent formatting. I'm raising this because it shows up on every astronomy FAC. Further, there should be no need to fret over endashes; if you start using them correctly, they won't need changing, but when they do need changing, it's a simple matter of asking Brighterorange to run a script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the templates, but I would like to state for the record that I had nothing to do with the template change. I added most of the refs on this page, and I only use cite template. Serendi^podous 18:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

At least now you know the source of the problem, and maybe you can watch for future additions of the citation template, when the rest of the article uses cite templates; they are two completely different citation styles and shouldn't be mixed. Now, almost all of your citations are missing authors because you left the faulty field from the old citation templates, which is different than citet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there are still numerous dash errors, I'll leave a post asking Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. Tedious work this, but I think I've got all the cite errors. Anyway, hope this and Brightorange are enough to clinch it. Serendi^podous 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, no, many errors still). I've left numerous sample edits to help get you going; refs need extensive cleanup, the following are issues:

1. Month-year combos should not be linked, see WP:MOSDATE

2. What is your et al threshhold? Diberri's template filler and the medical articles list the first three when there are more than five. You don't seem to have a consistent threshhold for the use of et al. Does the Space Project have a guideline as WP:MEDMOS does?

3. There are author errors throughout, caused by the mixed citation method.

4. What is the citation style on authors? It should be consistent throughout, including punctuation. Diberri's PMID template filler returns Author1 AB, Author2 CD, Author3 DE. Do you use first name first or last name first? Do you use initials or full names? There should be a standard format throughout.

5. The year and date parameter on templates don't need to both be used.

6. What is your threshhold on page numbers? Is it 1445–1456 or 1445–56 ? If the articles that you cite have PMIDs, all of this can be simplified and standardized by using Diberri's template filler.

7. When a full-text URL is cited (not a DOI or PMID), an accessdate is needed.

I'm taking time on this because it comes up on all the astonomy articles and there doesn't seem to be a standard; a standard citaiton method (such as seen in all the medical articles) might be good to establish. There are so many errors now that re-checking each citation might be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't mean to sound rude or anything but hammering it down like this isn't going to help. The reason the space articles on Wikipedia don't have a standard is because a) there are several different space-related Wiki projects, all of whom have overlapping contributors and b) leaving a message on most space-related talk pages is akin to leaving a message in a bottle. I mean sure, you are likely to get me to establish a standard by doing this, but that standard is unlikely to travel far. Serendi^podous 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem; if they don't have a standard, they don't, but you can start at home by making sure this article has a consistent citation method, since crit 2c requires it, and the WP:CITE guideline explains why we shouldn't mix citation and citet methods. You're almost done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note about names. I tend to prefer the names first name first, and to use full names when provided, initials when it is not. Serendi^podous 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I followed Diberri conventions on the samples I did. Do you want me to fix the ones I did, or are you going back through all of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support The artilce is comprehensive, well sourced and well written. However I noticed that the lead says Triton has a mean density of 2.061 g/cm3 and is composed of approximately 25% water ice., while 'Physical characteristics' section says This density means Triton is probably about 30–45% water ice,. I think these two sentences should be reconciled. Ruslik (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

fixed. Serendi^podous 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• From WP:MOS#Images, several images need to be relocated. "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Serendipodous, I think everything is set now, and I hope I've gotten the author formatting the way you like. I found what I think was a typo and changed it; can you check this edit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. You got it right. Don't know how you knew it was 15%, but yes that was the figure intended. Don't know why that happened. Weird. Thanks very much for all your help. I'm going to sleep now. Good night. Serendi^podous 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Minor object Why six refs in the lead? if the is a true summary, the refs can go in the body where they belong. Also, some sections are only 2-3 sentences long. Overall, very close to FA. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I put the refs in the lead on the advice of another reviewer. Also 2-3 sentences is a fairly normal length for a paragraph. Serendi^podous 08:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of FAC reviewers object to not having citations in the lead, so this is why they get added. A reason I've seen given is that the reader should not have to search down through the body for the appropriate reference. I don't see that this is reason to object. But I do agree that some of the sections have perhaps become unnecessarily short, with a single paragraph.—RJH (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.