Talk:Polydeuces (moon)/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, grabbing this review. I'll finish this in a bit. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 23:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Images

• Copyrights are in order.
• I see where the information is cited on the commons, all the images sources are good on my end.
• For the 'Cassini images of Polydeuces' caption, please clarify these are approximates.

Done

• I would love to see alt text for the images, this isn't a requirement but is good practice (Optional).

Copyright

• Spot checking doesn't raise any immediate concerns.
• Earwig only flags proper nouns

Sourcing

• "Polydeuces". Lexico UK English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 24 October 2021.

- Not a huge fan of the Tertiary source but it is only used for basic pronunciation, I will allow it.

• Manual check finds that all sources are still live, I recommend archiving but don't require it.

MISC

• Stable page
• Nominator is also main author.

Prose

• In the infobox, I don't see surface gravity or escape velocity cited in the main body

Comment: The surface gravity and escape velocity values were automatically calculated via the Gr and V2 templates. Unfortunately there aren't any up-to-date sources for these quantities since they either use outdated values for Polydeuces's dimensions or do not bother calculating them at all since Polydeuces's density is unknown. Not sure if this qualifies as original research (because of assumed density) or routine calculations, so I'll leave you to decide. Nrco0e (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It can stay, but can you footnote a brief methodology? Like what you did for the mass and volume.🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Done

• "systematically" reads like WP:Puffery

Comment: "Systematically" here means "regularly". I'm quoting the reference (4:223) that is attached to this statement: "Cassini ISS images shuttered since the start of science imaging on approach, on 2004 February 6, have been systematically examined for previously unknown saturnian satellites." If that's still unclear to you, would it be fine if I replaced the word as "regularly" instead? Nrco0e (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e 'routinely' would work fine. It's boarding on WP:TECHNICAL in this case since it has a astronomy specific definition. Systematically can have a couple of definitions, I actually read this as 'methodical" or "In depth". 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Done

• "detections of the moon" specify this is Polydeuces

Done

• "precovered" I'm not sure if this is even a word

Comment: I already wikilinked precovery in a preceding sentence in the same section: "...Cassini Imaging Science Team was able to identify 52 precovery detections..." If it's too technical, I can replace "precovered" with "found pre-discovery images" instead. Nrco0e (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That'll be fine since its a linked term. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Done

• One possible explanation is that Polydeuces's eccentricity is primordial; its orbit was initially eccentric when it formed and has remained that way since Simplify sentence, too many words to say something rather simple.

Done

• ' as known for' Just say 'similar to'

Done

• 'researchers may assume' vague wording, clarify or explain

Done

• "only show it spanning more than ten pixels across" clarify what this means.

Comment: I tried to remove the wordiness and extraneous detail, though I still would like some feedback on how it looks now. Nrco0e (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e The phrase "over 10 pixels wide" is a remark based upon FN 13 where they reference the methodology they used to estimate the shape of Polydeuces. The issue here is that it makes little sense without the context of why 10 pixels is important. In table 3 is discusses that the images are over 500 pixels in total. Simply put, "more than 10 pixels doesn't mean much. Clarifying that this is the first time they got images of Polydeuces larger than 10 pixels across would read better and provide better context. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. I've replaced it with your suggestion. Let me know if there are any more issues. Nrco0e (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: That's all from me, page is on hold. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

---

@Nrco0e, at this time I do not see any additional issues within GA criteria. Article passes. Congrats on another GA, this was an easy review and the page was incredibly well written. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 06:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.