Wikipedia:Peer review/Ganymede (moon)/archive1

Ganymede (moon)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been significantly expanded since the New Year. Any comments about the article's content are appreciated.

Thanks,

Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJH review

Overall a pretty good article. I really couldn't find much to fault, so I only have a few suggestions:

The first sentence of "Composition" section suggests a composition that is half water ice. Should this just say water, in lieu of the subsurface ocean? Or is the composition section specifically about the surface?
I think the second paragraph of "Orbit and rotation" may need a diagram for clarity. Also, the term "superior conjunction" is usually used in reference to the Earth's position around the Sun. I'm unclear about the perspective here.
I suspect that some jargon like "moment of inertia" and "magnetic moment" may need to be explained.
Could the article explain why Ganymede accreted at such a rapid rate compared to Callisto?

Nice work. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the last bullet, I added "The 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." The paper is here. Ruslik, I couldn't find the point where it confirms 10,000 years for Ganymede. Marskell (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a diagram on Io for the second point. Marskell (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a ref. Ruslik (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been expanded to a good size and Velvetron is taking care of some minor things like duplicate blue links. Next, the info box needs refs. Marskell (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along with "moment of inertia" and "magnetic moment," "the low strength of the higher quadrupole harmonics" also needs to be explained for the reader. After that, we're pretty much good to go with this one. Marskell (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small note: I know I said on Callisto that the adjectival form seems better upper case, but really adjectives are adjectives so I just changed to lower case. I've used ganymedian every time. Marskell (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence contaning "the low strength of the higher quadrupole harmonics" and added an explanation for "dimenesionless moment of inertia". However "magnetic moment" requires a lengthy explanation. I think it is better to simply use the wikilink. Ruslik (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]