Talk:Adrastea (moon)/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Writing issues

• "In 1983, it was officially named after the mythological Adrastea, one of the daughters of the Greek god Zeus—the equivalent of Roman god Jupiter." Replace with "one daughter"
• "Amalthea's density implies that that moon is composed of water ice with a porosity of 10-15%, and Adrastea may be similar." Find some way to say this without repeating words.
• "In any case, however, since it is not breaking up, it must still lie outside its rigid Roche limit." Start with "However".
• 'It is easy for the impact ejecta to be lost from the satellites into space because the satellites' surfaces lie fairly close to the edge of their Roche spheres due to their low density." Vague adjective, delete.
• "It appears that Adrastea is the most copious source of this ring material, as evidenced by the most dense ring (the Main Ring) being located at and within Adrastea's orbit." Densest.
• "While it appeared only as a dot, it was the first moon to be discovered by an interplanetary spacecraft." While implies that these things happened at the same time. Maybe use "Although" instead.
• "It is easy for the impact ejecta to be lost from the satellites into space because the satellites' surfaces lie fairly close to the edge of their Roche spheres due to their low density." Not clear enough what the second "their" is referring to. Maybe split this up into two sentences.
• Too much "appears" in the rings section.
• The second paragraph in the discovery section is a single sentence and it would more logically appear somewhere in the first paragraph.

"The Galileo spacecraft was able to determine the mooon's shape in 1998, but the images remain poor." Somehow it picked up a misspelling.

MoS issues

• Double link to Roche limit in the orbit section.
• Infobox has the date of discovery, but this is missing from the discovery section.
• The see also section shouldn't list previously-linked articles. No big loss to delete the whole section.
• Comparison to Phobos in the lead but not in the rest of the article.
• For an article this small a less detailed single paragraph lead might be better.
• "&" symbol in one of the source citations.
• Move the discovery image to the right so it doesn't mess with the section header. Also, put it in the discovery section where it belongs. If it won't fit there because of the infobox, it could also go in the rings section.

??? not sure what you mean Nergaal (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adrastée FDS 20630.png is in the physical characteristics section right now, which makes no sense. The image caption mentions the rings and the discovery of the moon, so logically it should go in one of those sections. Also, it is anchored right after the end of a paragraph, so the orbit section header flows around it. I don't see anything in the MoS about it, but I think section headers are supposed to be left aligned. Since there isn't something in the GA criteria about this, if you really think it looks better this way, leave it be. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Several references to Amalthea but no links to it in the prose sections.
• Don't link adjacent words to different things, for example "Greek nymph Adrastea".

There are still some cases of this. For example, I really don't think you need to link both nymph and Adrasteia. If someone wants to find out what a nymph is, they can look at the article on Adrasteia. However, the part of the MoS that talks about this is not part of the GA criteria. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dashes between ranges of numbers should be replaced by "–", for example "10-15%".

Verifiability

• Inconsistent last name first/first name first in source citations.

now? Nergaal (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Assuming that its mean density is like that of Amalthea", this part of the physical characteristics section looks like original research. The assumption needs to be cited and the assumer named in the article, or it should be removed.

not sure about this. the two bodies are thought to be similar. nobody knows the mass, but assuming same density, and using density=mass/volume you get that mass. why is a ref necessary there? Nergaal (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The ref is needed for the assumption that the compositions of the moons are similar. See WP:SCG#Attribution. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not happy about the wording, but the citation will do. Wronkiew (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• "It orbits Jupiter at a radius of ~129,000 km (1.806 Jupiter radii) at the exterior edge of the planet's Main Ring." This needs its own citation.
• The IAU circulars need authors.
• The URL for "Discovery of a New Jupiter Satellite" is broken.

Image caption issues

• "Image of Adrastea taken by Galileo's solid-state imaging system between November 1996 and June 1997." Find a more straightforward way to say that Galileo took the photo with a digital camera. If the exact terminology is important, explain it in the discovery section.

"Image of Adrastea taken by Galileo's between November 1996 and June 1997." Shouldn't be possessive. Also, not a full sentence, so no full stop. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

• The image in the infobox claims to be from NASA but does not provide a URL or a reference to a NASA document.

I am truly confused about this. It is an image on commons, and I have no idea what's happening there. The image was taken by Galileo, and is therefore NASA's. Nergaal (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the URL. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has some issues so I'm going to place the review on hold until they can be fixed. Wronkiew (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Article passes the GA review. Wronkiew (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)