Talk:Wright Mons/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

Nominator: ArkHyena (talk · contribs) 21:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 16:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw this getting discussed quite a bit on the WP:DISCORD, so I'm happy to see it brought to GAN! I'll go through this and try to make sure everything is in tip-top shape. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Criterion #1: Well-written

Lede

• It's a bit short. You should mention the details of its discovery by New Horizons as well as briefly describing the hummocks, the presence of adjacent cyrovolcanoes, and give its rough size.

Added Discovered by the New Horizons spacecraft in 2015... and Numerous semi-regular hills surround and partially construct the flanks of Wright Mons. Their nature remains unexplained, with few, if any, direct analogs elsewhere in the Solar System. to the lede -Ark

• But on the contrary to that, I think the lede flows better if we take out "near the center of the low-lying Hyecho Palus region".

Shortened it to ... within Hyecho Palus. -Ark

• I think you need a comma after "if any".

Addressed by another editor -Ark

Discovery and naming

• Per MOS:ACRO, you should spell out the International Astronomical Union since its the first (and only) mention of the term.

Addressed by another editor -Ark

• This is extremely minor and not actually part of GA criteria so I won't ding you for not doing it, but when using italics for emphasis, you should use <em>...</em> instead of simple apostrophes.

Done -Ark

• Wikilink Pluto. The lede doesn't "count" in terms of whether you've already wikilinked something, so you should link the first body mention of everything you link in the lede. (These are scattered throughout the article so I won't bother repeating that in later sections.)

Done -Ark

Geography

• By ancient I assume its meant "one that's no longer active" as opposed to the complex merely existing for a long time? That should probably be clarified.

Elaborated as ... a massive tectonic complex that appears to be Pluto's oldest large-scale feature and cuts a north-south great circle around most of Pluto's observed regions. -Ark

• Use Convert whenever you use km. Wouldn't want to lose any satellites over this!

Done -Ark

Structure and geology

• Wouldn't it be Wright Mons' instead of Wright Mons's?

Per Chicago/MLA standards[1], proper names ending in s may use -'s; I personally prefer this standard -Ark

• I have no idea what "edifice" means here, it might be good to wikilink the sense you're using.

There's no page dedicated to volcanic structure, so linking to Volcano#Volcanic features -Ark

• Ditto earlier on Convert.

Done -Ark

• "have been compared" -> "has been compared"

Done -Ark

Notes

• Move this section to between the See Also and References, per MOS:ORDER.

Done -Ark

• It needs a period at the end.

Done -Ark

Criterion #2: Verifiable with no original research=

• Also not part of the GA criteria, but it'd be very helpful to me if there were sfns here so I could tell which pages to check.

Added Rps for pdf page numbers of Schenk and collaborators 2018, the most cited article -Ark

More to come. And we're back!~

• Cite 1: Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature

• Checks out on A, B, and C.

• Cite 3: Schenk et al., 2018. Thank you for the page numbers; though I will say you have cited them to the pages of the document, rather than the pages of the journal, which makes things slightly confusing. This can be fixed by adding 400 to all page numbers... except, I think your numbers are also all off by one? Cites saying 32 are on 31, cites saying 23 are on 22, etc. I will account for this in my spot-check, but you should fix all these.

• • A: Took a bit of searching but found it on page 421. Checks out.
  • B: Checks out on 431.
  • C: Checks out on 422 and 425.
  • D: Most of this checks out on 422, but the "[tracing] the 155° meridian" seems to be best supported by the abstract on 400.
  • E: Checks out on 425.
  • F: Checks out on 425.
  • G: Checks out on 426.
  • H: Checks out on 431.
  • I: Checks out on 422 and 426.

Fixed the issues w/ page numbers, and added pg. 400 to D -Ark

Cite 4: Singer, White, Schmitt et al., 2022.

• A: Indeed.
• B: Yep, talks a lot about hummocks.
• C: Yep!

• General thought, you definitely cover breadth requirements, but I get the sense that you can milk this source a lot more - might be useful if you ever want to bring this to FAC.

Certainly will keep in mind! -Ark

Cite 7: White et al, 2023

• Checks out!

Cite 8: McKinnon et al., 2020.

• I don't see anything about pillow or pāhoehoe lava lava here. Is this the wrong source? (Also you should use the term cryolava more but also define it, because it is cool as hell but also confusing.)

It looks like I've mixed up the attribution, citation should be from Cite 4: (2) viscous extrusion of rapidly cooled lavas analogous to pillow lavas, (3) compression of viscous material with a frozen skin analogous to pahoehoe... -Ark

For the latter point, added ... formed from erupted volatile material termed cryolava. in the first sentence of the Cryovolcanism subsection -Ark

Cite 9:New Horizons News Center, 2015.

• Checks out.

Cite 11: Singer et al., 2016

• I'm not sure what this cite is supporting here; is it the pit being caldera-like? It doesn't make a connection to other volcanoes or talk about its origins.

This also was a misattribution, and I've moved it to ... Hyecho Palus is interpreted by some planetary geologists as a cryovolcanic plain or province., from ... the north displays several craters and may represent an older, more degraded cryovolcanic flow. The region west of Wright Mons is distinct but also a potentially cryovolcanic terrain... -Ark

Cite 12: Ahrens et al., 2020

• I don't see any mention of shield volcanoes. I do however see direct comparisons to terrestrial Mud volcanoes which you should definitely bring up.

Seems like Cite 4 also supports the claim better, which I've changed to ... in a similar manner to individual large volcanoes of the inner planets... from This is a departure from previous studies that considered Wright Mons more similar to single, coherent edifices with a central caldera and the other large rises as a separate kind of feature. -Ark

For the latter point, I've added Wright Mons has also been compared to terrestrial mud volcanoes, with a hypothesis proposing that subsurface mud-like slurry could be forced up due to density differences in seasonally-deposited layers on Pluto's surface. Models of this type of cryovolcanism construct a Wright Mons-sized structure within 1-10 million years. from [These] oscillatory zones experiencing cyclical extremes are optimal zones for long-term seasonal surface layers (sedimentation of ices). This sedimentation of ices is a prime condition for density inversion for the formation of mud volcanoes. and [We] find that Wright Mons could have developed within an order of 10⁰–10¹ million years, depending on the viscosities of the cryofluids present.

Criterion 3: Broad

• Generally hits. though I think you need to use Cite 12 a bit more, because it theorizes the volcano's origins via the cryovolcanic "mud".

Criterion 4: Neutral

• See no areas where it might be non-neutral.

Criterion 5: Stable

• Yep, good to go on this front.

Criterion 6: Illustrated

• All images in the public domain thanks to NASA. You need alt-text on these, though.

Alt-text added -Ark

• @ArkHyena: There we go, some stuff to fix up. Let me know if you have any questions! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ArkHyena: All of these changes look great! I am confident to say this hits the GA criteria now. Thank you for your good work, and I hope we see plenty more of it! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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.