Talk:Skathi (moon)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 12:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Review
Hi, please find below my initial comments, which are about the lead section. There seems to be quite a lot of work that needs to be done to get the article to GA, so I think it would be a good idea if you started to address my comments before the review comments are all done. I'll cross each one out once I can see it has been addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the careful comments. The first round of changes has been committed, and please let me know if I missed anything. I'm not surprised that it will take some work, which I'm more than happy to do, and promptly -- I basically wrote the page in one edit when nobody at WP Astronomy could explain the absolutely staggering level of sustained attention this page has been getting. Just in case those pageviews are real, I see this as a bit of an emergency improvement job, so I'm more than happy to see and address whatever comments you have. Thanks again! - Astrophobe  (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

 * Amend the link to Norse group of satellites so it only links Norse group.
 * CFHT in the infobox needs to be written out in full. Ditto Mauna Kea Obs..
 * Is the pronunciation needed in the infobox? It already appears at the top of the lead section.
 * (Norse mythology) is imo not needed in the infobox.
 * I would amend a group of to ‘a team of’.
 * Link astronomers (Astronomer); rotate on its axis (Rotation around a fixed axis); orbits (Orbit); asteroid; gravity.
 * of Saturn should be ‘of the planet Saturn’.
 * To reduce the times Skathi is used in the lead, amend Skathi was discovered - ‘it was discovered’; Skathi was named – ‘The moon was named’; Skathi was originally – ‘It was originally’; Skathi was a portion – ‘it was originally a portion.
 * more than 2 years is too vague (give the number of days). Ditto about 12 hours (state the number of minutes).
 * Other than its orbital motion is redundant and can be deleted. Ditto in the universe.
 * a substantial distance is meaningless in this context.
 * Convert 9 million kilometres to miles. Ditto 8 kilometres.
 * My apologies for not being clearer, I meant use the undefined undefined template to show the distances in both miles and kilometres. Done for you. AM


 * Amend composition has not been measured to ‘composition has not been determined’.
 * Rewrite and to not have a very spherical shape to improve the prose.

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

References - initial comments

 * Ref 3 (Sheppard) - add a url (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Merriam_Webster_s_Encyclopedia_of_Litera/eKNK1YwHcQ4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover), and add the correct page number (p. 1038).
 * ✅ - Astrophobe  (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 3 includes a note with its own citation. It would imo be better having a separate note in the Notes section.
 * I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly your recommendation is here. Do you want me to move the references to a second bullet point in the notes section? - Astrophobe  (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll do the edit, and please feel free to revert what I've done if you don't like it. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Sorry I didn't catch your meaning, but this certainly makes sense. - Astrophobe  (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 6	(Washington Post) - add a url (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Solar_System_Moons/6YGqFZ_RPdQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover).
 * Where are you recommending this URL should go? That reference template already has a URL pointing to the Washington Post story, are you saying that this should be given as a second reference for the same claim? - Astrophobe  (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my mistake. AM


 * Ref 11 (Simon et al) - add a url (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/contribution_docs/LPI-001927.pdf).
 * ✅ - Astrophobe  (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 16 What makes you think https://phys.org/ is a reliable source?
 * Replaced. But I do ask that, when you phrase your recommendations, please keep in mind that I'm another volunteer doing the best I can in the time I have. - Astrophobe  (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted, apologies if my messages come across as a little abrupt sometimes. I tend to phrase comments in the same way as other editors who have reviewed my nominations—and at times they can be extraordinarily rude (probably without realising). Amitchell125 (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding, and I totally agree that a certain amount of abruptness is definitely the norm here. And I really appreciate the work it takes to do these reviews! - Astrophobe  (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 17 (Lissauer) - add a url (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2006ASPC..357...31L).
 * ✅ - Astrophobe  (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

References - formatting

 * Ref 1 ((Jet Propulsion Laboratory), amend the publisher to NASA (linked).
 * Ref 2 (NASA), remove the dash in In-Depth.
 * Ref 3 (Shepherd), add a retrieval date; Link Scott S. Sheppard.
 * Ref 6 (Blunck), use this link to amend any incorrect ISBN numbers in this section in one go; add the location (Berlin); add this url (missed from the earlier list).
 * Ref 8 (IAUC 8177), publisher required (International Astronomical Union's Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams (linked)).
 * Ref 9 (IAUC 8471), publisher required (see Ref 7), add a retrieval date.
 * Ref 11 (Denk et al), publisher and location needed (The University of Arizona Press, Tucson); the authors and editors should have their surnames given first.
 * Ref 12 (Simon et al), add ISSN=0004-6361; pages should read 663–683 (not 663–83).
 * Ref 13 (Denk et al) seems to be an incorrect link. Is this https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EPSC-DPS2019/EPSC-DPS2019-710-2.pdf correct? Add ISSN=0002-7537.
 * Ref 15 (NSO), the retrieval date has a different format and needs amending.
 * Ref 18 (Lissauer) has citation details here. Please amend the reference accordingly.
 * Ref 19 (Ma et al) add ISSN=1743-9213; the authors should have their surnames given first; add the publisher (Cambridge University Press).
 * Ref 20 (Turrini et al) add ISSN=0035-8711; the authors should have their surnames given first; add the publisher (Royal Astronomical Society).

1 Discovery

 * Delete the team of (it's redundant text—they were clearly a team, and the team is mentioned later in the paragraph).
 * The team discovered Skathi on the same day as seven other satellites of Saturn could be read as meaning they didn’t discover the others. Consider amending to something like ‘The team discovered seven other satellites of Saturn on the same day.’.
 * There’s no need to divide the section into subsections – I would remove the sub-titles.
 * Much of the quoted text in this section could be paraphrased (see WP:QUOTEFARM).
 * Who are Rachel Feltman and Sarah Kaplan?
 * Replace the link to Innuit with a link to Innuit mythology (Inuit religion).
 * Delete the link to Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature (the same link already exists in IAU).
 * Delete the link to Ijiraq (it is a duplicated link).

More comments to follow. It's a fascinating topic! Amitchell125 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

2 Motion

 * Link Saturn’s moons (in the caption) (Moons of Saturn).
 * solar system should be in capitals throughout.
 * A larger eccentricity means that an orbit is less circular – imo ‘A circular orbit has a value of zero’ is easier to understand.
 * Could the last sentence in the first paragraph be reduced? (e.g. to something like ‘A circular orbit has a value of zero; Skathi's eccentricity is greater than many objects in the solar system, such as the Earth, which has an eccentricity of 0.016.’).
 * The second paragraph is largely a reprise of the preceding one—it needs to be copy edited so that any duplicated information is removed.
 * Delete So it is believed that (see MOS:WEASEL).
 * Skathi's rotation period is estimated to be between 11 and 12 hours seems rather redundant as it is followed by similar (and more precise) information.
 * I’m not convinced the subtitles Orbit and Rotation are required, as the latter has hardly any text.

More comments to follow. AM

3 Physical characteristics

 * Link flyby (Flyby (spaceflight)); Solar System; density.
 * Consider amending Skathi was also studied by the Cassini probe in 8 observations to ‘The Cassini probe observed Skathi on eight occasions’, or something similar.
 * Convert 6 million miles using undefined undefined . Ditto 5 miles.
 * The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph has information that either already been stated or is brought up further on in the section, and so can be removed.
 * which means that only 6% of the light that reaches it is reflected – you don’t need both this and the fact that its albedo is 0.06.
 * and is not very spherical is not needed, as all irregularly shaped objects are not very spherical.
 * Many of Saturn's moons are composed of water ice and rock, but Skathi's chemical composition has not been determined, and it may have different origins and physical composition than Saturn's other moons. This sentence discusses the moon’s origin, as well as its chemical and physical composition, all in one go, and so is rather confusing. Do you mean ‘Skathi's origin and composition have not been determined.’?

4 Origin

 * It may not be clear to readers why the link to sensitive to initial conditions is Chaos theory.
 * Ref 2 (NASA) doesn’t seem to verify the text in the first sentence.
 * I’m confused by For the most part.
 * of a solar system is unclear – do you mean ‘of the Solar System’ or ‘of solar systems’?
 * This explains the motion of many of the planets of the solar system, and their moons is off-topic.
 * Link accreting (Accretion (astrophysics)); plane (Plane (geometry)).
 * I would amend captured by Saturn to ‘captured by the planet’, if only to reduce the number of times Saturn is mentioned in the paragraph.
 * Why arbitrarily?

On hold
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 1 May to allow time for the above comments to be addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, and for the really thorough and helpful review. I think I've made all the comments so far, please let me know if I've accidentally missed anything. Thanks! - Astrophobe  (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Passing
Passing the article as GA now, thanks for your work. Ping me if you get round to another similar article that you're nominating, I'd be happy to review it. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)