Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Io (moon)
Io (moon)[edit]
I am submitting this article for scientific peer review with intention of later submitting the article for reinstatement as a featured article. My main purpose for this review is to try to gather opinions as to the use of jargon. I have tried to reduce such usage as much as possible, and provided wikilinks where jargon was used. I also request a peer review as to the general content of the article, and whether it is ready for a featured article candidate run, and what fixes should be made before such a nomination be put forward. --Volcanopele 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Request transcluded to WP:PR. --Volcanopele 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overall the article looks pretty good. However there might be an issue for some readers with the amount of specialized jargon employed. For example: "high-phase observations", "pyroclastic" "anti-correlated", "morphologies", "collimated streams" and "polar ionosphere". (See Wikipedia:Explain jargon.) The term "patera" is used several times in the article before it is explained; "mafic to ultramafic" is explained at it's second occurance rather than the first. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. For some of these I replaced the term with less jargon text, particularly when a term is only used once, like "high-phase observations" or "anti-correlated". Others, I added some explanatory text. Patera was never used as a term, but as part of the name of the feature, until it was explained in the text. However, I did add some text in the Name section to explain what each of the feature name types means in the context of Io, like patera. Morphology is explained in the same area. For pyroclastic, I added the words "silicate" and "like ash" to the its first usage in the text, as well as wikilinked to Pyroclastic rock. --Volcanopele 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. The one other item that stands out for me is the surprising amount of restraint in the number of images. There are sections that are downright sparse, yet Io is quite photogenic. For example, a quality image of the lava lake at Loki Patera or a size comparison image with Jupiter could be of interest to the casual reader. Just a suggestion, of course. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly more Io images would be great, but at the same time, the images should be within the appropriate section and there should be too many images. I think one more in the Galileo Section might be appropriate, maybe one of the close approach images. --Volcanopele 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. The one other item that stands out for me is the surprising amount of restraint in the number of images. There are sections that are downright sparse, yet Io is quite photogenic. For example, a quality image of the lava lake at Loki Patera or a size comparison image with Jupiter could be of interest to the casual reader. Just a suggestion, of course. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. For some of these I replaced the term with less jargon text, particularly when a term is only used once, like "high-phase observations" or "anti-correlated". Others, I added some explanatory text. Patera was never used as a term, but as part of the name of the feature, until it was explained in the text. However, I did add some text in the Name section to explain what each of the feature name types means in the context of Io, like patera. Morphology is explained in the same area. For pyroclastic, I added the words "silicate" and "like ash" to the its first usage in the text, as well as wikilinked to Pyroclastic rock. --Volcanopele 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Should the article have a link to Io with {{dablink}}? I was suprised that this was not the premier article, as it is a very important astronomical body, while the mythological entity is less important (this coming from a scientist of course). -RunningOnBrains 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that Io is a very important astronomical body, it has become a common convention to use " (moon)" for planetary satellite articles, rather than make them the premier article. --Volcanopele 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)