Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ganymede (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 16:00, 27 February 2008.
Self-nominator. The article, which is about the largest moon in the Solar System, has been significantly expanded and copy-edited for the last two months. It has passed through the PR process and I believe now satisfies FA criteria. Ruslik (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As ever with articles Ruslik works on, this is extremely rich in statistics and information. It compares favourably to the other satellite FAs. It's very similar to Callisto (moon) in organization but I think the prose is somewhat more accessible, as we've tried to pay attention to that. Marskell (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak support. From the standpoints of comprehensiveness illustration and citation, excellent. But it could still use a grammatical/semantic going-over. EDIT: Just did a quick workthrough. Will come back later.Serendipodous 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Nearly there- I'm giving it a bit of a massage as I go and it looks good.I'll list potential fixes below:Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::The heating mechanism required to produce the disrupted surface geology is of particular interest. - this strikes me as redundant, especially if the "unsolved" is changed to something like "intriguing" in the previuous sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
The existence and possible nature of the atmosphere of Ganymede have been controversial. - I'm wondering whether we could lose this as well, or at least reword or cite it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)[reply]
- I fixed these two sentences. Ruslik (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to eliminate duplicate blue links. There's probably still a few, as there were a lot to begin with. If there's a link in the lead, I allow a second one later. Marskell (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for another Wikipedia treasure.--GrahamColmTalk 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Ruslik (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment—Another fine Jovian moon article.Most of the content looks FA ready. I just have a few issues:"Ganymedian craters are quite flat, lacking the ring mountains and central depressions common to craters on the Moon and Mercury." Shouldn't that be "central peaks"?- Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The {{e}} template has been fixed now so that it incorporates spaces around the '×'. Hence the additional ' 's are no longer necessary.- Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched but could not find an explanation why there is a magnetic field on Ganymede but not on Callisto or Europa. If Europa has an iron core like Ganymede, why doesn't Europa have a magnetic field? Europa is also being tidally pumped, so the explanation seems incomplete. Some mention of the reason in the "Magnetosphere" section would be good.- In fact, nobody knows why Ganymede has a magnetic field but Europa and especially Io lack it. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a sentence to that effect. Marskell (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, nobody knows why Ganymede has a magnetic field but Europa and especially Io lack it. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following sentence doesn't quite explain why there is a difference between formation time intervals for the two Galilean moons. Aren't both Ganymede and Callisto considered Galilean satellites?- Jovian subnebula may have been relatively "gas-starved" when the Galilean satellites formed; this would have allowed for the lengthy accretion times required for Callisto.
- Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jovian subnebula may have been relatively "gas-starved" when the Galilean satellites formed; this would have allowed for the lengthy accretion times required for Callisto.
- Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Callisto doesn't have the iron core, which would explain one of the two. Possibly Europa's is no longer liquid? Marskell (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the fixes. I've changed my position to support.—RJH (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Callisto doesn't have the iron core, which would explain one of the two. Possibly Europa's is no longer liquid? Marskell (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Please ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to correct the endashes, I found one very bad instance of a formula wrapping to the next line in need of {{nowrap}} (there are probably others), I found some hyphens that meant to be negative signes, and I attempted to clean up the citations to provide a consisent bibliographic style on author names, but I couldn't decipher what bibliographic style was in use (varying use of commas, periods, semi-colons, differing ways of using et al, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed these issues. Ruslik (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Ruslik, I promoted it to featured about an hour ago, but the bot hasn't been through yet. (See WP:FAC/ar) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed these issues. Ruslik (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.