Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Moons of Neptune/archive1

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:21, 22 October 2010 [1].

Moons of Neptune[edit]

Moons of Neptune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ruslik_Zero 17:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the last list of giant planets moons that is not features. It currently satisfies FL criteria, in my opinion. Ruslik_Zero 17:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comments about the table: (1) how come there is no discoverer entry? (2) shouldn't retrograde moons have negative orbital periods? (3) how come triton is not labeled separately as it is in hydrostatic equilibrium? (4) there is a light shade of gray used in the table that does not have a legend. Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added discovery column. Retrograde moons have inclination greater than 90° (see note 6). Triton is only one large moon, and it can not really be mixed up with any other. So, labeling is not necessary. I added the second key. Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How come the other moons list (moons of Saturn) have retrograde periods as negative values? Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orbital by definition is a positive value. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Voyager 2 recovered Larissa" I know what it means but it should be explained what revocered means in astronomy
Recovered means recovered and nothing more. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • and has five embedded bright arcs what is an arc here?
According to Webster' it means a continuous portion (as of a circle or ellipse) of a curved line. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At about 400 km, in what? average diameter?
Width. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its largest crater, Pharos, is more than 150 km in diameter. this sounds super cool. How much is the crater compared to the total surface, percentagewise?
I see absolutely nothing funny here. The sentence is pretty normal. If you know how to calculate the surface area of an irregular body you can do this. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably complex organic compounds needs a ref right near it since it sounds like speculation
    It is the second known moon in the Solar System to have a substantial atmosphere, you mean only two are known, or was the second one discovered to have an atmosphere?
Of course, there are only two moons in the Solar System. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • has a high geometrical albedo of more than 70%. The Bond albedo is even higher, I think there needs to be some explanatory note on how the two are different.
I am ready to add a note 10 kb in size—it is not possible to explain this in any shorter text. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neptune has the largest Hill sphere in the solar system Of curiosity, what is the record for a known moon for the percentage of the Hill radius?
Do not understand what you means here. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that because of this great perturbation, the satellite system of Neptune does not follow the 1/10,000 ratio of mass between the parent planet versus all its moons seen in all other gas giants this sounds poorly. I get the idea but should be rephrased.
Perfectly normal sentence. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the most lopsided of any group of satellites in the Solar System how about Earth's? (theoretically Earth could have another moon of 10 millimeters in diameter)
So, I will probably add to the Earth's article that Earth's system of satellites is the most lopsided in the Solar System. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • binary. binary what?
It is a noun. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irregular (captured) moons are marked by color it should be stated at the beginning of the irregular moons section that irregular means implies that it is probably captured.
    I am not sure the discoverer column needs more than one or two authors. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that this column is needed at all. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since none of the raised problems have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead image caption needs to meet MOS, so "three days" not "3 days".
  • Could link "Solar System" in the lead.
  • "38 K (−235.2 °C)." if using {{convert}} maybe switch on the linking so non-experts get to learn what K is?
  • "The largest among them is Proteus" this reads a little bit Shakespearean, maybe "The largest of them is..."?
  • Don't overlink prograde or retrograde in the lead.
  • "luminosity did dip for" - would prefer "luminosity dipped for"
  • "(the second satellite, Nereid, was not discovered until 1949)" you've already said this.
  • "See also Name conflicts of solar system objects." this should be a {{see also}} at the top of this section.
  • Avoid squashing text between images as is happening on my screen in the Characteristics section.
  • Consider converting from km to miles throughout.
  • "200 km in size" this is very ambiguous. Do you mean diameter?
  • "Animated 3D model of Proteus" - 3D-> three-dimensional
  • Do you really think we need to link "rock"?
  • "bright (dark) spots " this is self-contradictory to non-experts so it needs more.
  • "(see diagram)" we don't do this in an online encyclopedia really.
  • Is this in USEng or UKEng? (grey vs circularized...)
  • What does bold mean in the table?
  • Remove spaces between headings and notes, although if you use linebreaks that's okay.
  • Mass doesn't sort correctly in Safari.
  • Why aren't decimal places consistent? E.g., Eccentricity of Triton is 0.0 while Galatea is 0.0001?
  • Foreign language references need to use language= parameter.
  • All web refs should use the accessdate= parameter.
  • Ref 27, for instance, needs to be subdivided into title=, url= etc, not just a single link as you have it.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I fixed everything except the following:
      1. I do not think that km should be converted to mi as other similar articles do not convert.
      2. I do think that 'rock' needs to be link as this is a geological term.
    • Ruslik_Zero 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using faintly different shades of gray to communicate information is A Bad Thing, not just for those with accessibility issues but also those with crappy monitors. :P Also, Triton is sufficient spherical, I think, that you don't really need to list the three dimensions. --Golbez (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really crappy monitors is a rarity now. (What do you mean? EGA monitor?) In any case they can use key. Of course, I can change shades of grey to colors. As to Triton, it is not a perfect sphere and the information is available, so, I specified it. Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually, my monitor at home is far from crappy - it's excellent and huge. However, it's so huge that colors look different if they're at the top or the bottom of the screen, due to the widely different viewing angle. I haven't tested this on my home monitor but I'm guessing that the grays will look sufficiently confused on it. But I'm a little happier now that you've added a key, which I believe was missing for the light gray ones before.
    As for Triton, okay, it's not a perfect sphere, it varies by .15% - but based on the rest of your table, that's implying - even if you don't intend it to - that II and IX through XIII are perfectly round, which I strongly doubt. Your footnote does a weak job of justifying it, saying "and the dimensions have been measured well enough"; I think that if you're going to be that precise with Triton, you need to make it abundantly clear that the figures for the others are blatantly imprecise. Maybe even just a tilde, or footnotes for each saying "Only one dimension of these moons is known to any degree" or something. Don't rely on a footnote in the column head to explain the edge cases.
    Finally, just out of curiosity, is there any particular sorting you applied to the names in the Discoverer column? --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The order of names is as in the cited source. I changed shades of grey to colors. I added tildes to outer moons sizes. Ruslik_Zero 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Moons_of_Neptune/archive1&oldid=392339927"