Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exploration of Io/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010.

Exploration of Io

 * Nominator(s): Volcanopele (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This article covers the history of astronomical and spacecraft studies of Jupiter's moon Io. It recently completed its peer review (though it only incited one reviewer to comment), which was helpful in assessing new official and unofficial FA criteria. I now believe the article is of sufficient comprehensiveness for an FAC run. Thank you all in advance for your comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism. Volcanopele (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. Two dab links, to sounding and sublimation. I see some problems with WP:ALT in the alt text, but don't have time to check in full now. External links fine. Ucucha 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I have fixed the sublimation dab link and adjusted the wikilink for "Electromagnetic induction sounding" to avoid the dab page.  I have edited some of the alt text.  I think this fixes the verifiability issues, avoiding making specific references to which planet/moon is displayed (Jupiter becomes "banded planetary body" for example).  --Volcanopele (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not my main concern; I think Jupiter may be well-known enough that we can assume people know what it looks like (cf. WP:ALT). But you can leave it as it is now. However, there are some other things: that the handwriting is Italian is not verifiable from the image alone at the resolution you see it in the article, and in the Pioneer 11 image, it is not verifiable that the right image has been darkened (rather than the left one brightened). There are a few other issues: In the I32 Pele image, rather than saying that there is a scale, you should say how large the multi-colored region is, which is the important information. Someone who can't see the image wouldn't be helped much by just learning that there is a scale. Ucucha 21:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for being more specific on the issues you found. I changed the Pioneer 10 image alt text to just say that the image on the right is darker (rather than it having been darkened), and that dark features are more easily visible.  I mentioned that the I32 Pele image was approximately 60 kilometers across as suggested by the scale bar in the image.  Finally I fixed your other issue with the mention that the notes were in Italian and changed the mentions of Jupiter in the alt text for the relevant images.  --Volcanopele (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's my fault for not being specific the first time around. I think it is good now; I made some further edits to remove non-essential details. Ucucha 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this article is well sourced, well written and satisfies all FA criteria. (I copy-edited it slightly). Ruslik_ Zero 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SUpport. Actually it needed a bit more of a copyedit, and i'm not the world's best at this, so i hope i caught everything. Otherwise clear, well structured and very interesting. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a problem with the sentence that begins: "Despite this, it is one of Marius' naming scheme for the moons of Jupiter that is regularly used today" This shoud either say "it is Marius's naming scheme for the moons" or "it is one of Marius's nameing schemes for the moons". I suspect after reading one of the sources cited by the article it should be the former, but I am not sure enough to make the edit myself. One of the reasons I am not sure is that the source cited for this sentence and for the next one doesn't seem to discuss the assertion about Marius coming up with the the names based on Kepler's suggestion. Rather those assertions are supported by another source  cited earlier in the paragraph. I suggest you explicitly make clear what the source for the assertion is and then follow that source and make it clear whether or not this was one of mulitple naming schemes suggested by Marius or it was the only naming scheme suggested by Marius. I will keep looking for more nits to pick, but it is a great article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be "Despite this, it is one of Marius' naming schemes for the moons...". I have made this edit.  I have also fixed the references used for the two sentences that cover this.  The first is the JPL article.  The second is Simon Marius' own book (used as a reference earlier in the paragraph).  I've added that reference.  In that book (toward the end of the section used at that link), he describes the naming schemes he came up with along with the circumstances of how the Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto scheme came about.  This should back up the statements in the article.  --Volcanopele (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment In the passage: "but he sent along his measurements to Dutch mathematician Christiaan Huygens, who calculated that light traveled 16+2⁄3 Earth diameters per second, misinterpreting Rømer's value of 22 minutes as the time in which light traverses the diameter of the Earth's orbit" could you please make it clear what the value was that Huygens misinterpreted? Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have to take another look later today at the references used. I think I...borrowed some of this section from the speed of light article. --Volcanopele (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at the current text of the speed of light article, the relevent source, and other interpretations of it. I think the text was simply in error. I have replaced it with text that is consistent with what the speed of light article now says and what I think is a more reasonable interpretation of the source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The following text in the lead is misleading: "such as helping mariners determine their longitude". In fact as the text of the article makes clear Io and the other moons of Jupiter were never very useful for finding longitude at sea. I would suggest instead "such as helping map makers and surveyors measure longitude", which is a more accurate summary of the body of the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. Thanks for the catch. The lead was actually one of the first things written, before I had written the "Io as a Tool" section.  After a re-reading the available sources and looking at a few others, it was clear that Io wasn't used for maritime navigation, but ground-based surveying.  I have made your suggested edit.  --Volcanopele (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;Overall it's good work. However some parts seem wordy and perhaps overly dramatic. The article could possibly benefit from a word-smith to tighten things up and make sure the tone remains encyclopedic. (E.g. "Stunned by...", "...was not completely surprising...", "...result was quite tenuous...", &c.)
 * I'm not the nominator, but will respond to these specific points - as a reader with an interest in these topics, the story of Io's exploration is one of the most dramatic in studies of our solar system, particularly in regard to the discovery of active volcanism, so i think some of the language appropriately reflects that - specifically i would retain "stunned by..." The "not completely surprising" and "quite tenuous" bits i thought were not great, and in one case i didn't think the reference substantiated the qualifier, so i have changed these two instances. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just going by WP:TONE, which recommends using a formal tone in a clear, businesslike manner.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * The following jargon terms are not linked: perturbation, occultation, equatorial, spectroscopic, spectrometer, absorption band, electrodynamic coupling, mid-infrared, thermal emission, pixel, high-gain antenna, low-gain antenna, data compression algorithms, and solar panel. I might have missed some others.
 * links provided for occultation, equator, spectrometer, absorption spectroscopy, infrared, thermal radiation, pixel, high-gain antenna, low-gain antenna, data compression and photovoltaic module. Link already in article for spectroscopy. Unable to locate a suitable link for "electrodynamic coupling", so someone may wish to add a phrase to this article to make it clearer for a lay reader. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm nit-picking a bit here, but the phrase "thermal emission" is not linked and a lay reader may not immediately recognize that this is the same as "thermal radiation". The first instance of "absorption band" is not linked. The term "mid-infrared" is something a little more specific than just "infrared" and has multiple definitions.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Your first two issues probably need attention, but the last seems like a definite mitpick :-) I think the link to infrared is all that is needed for a lay reader, esp. since we don't necessaryily know what "definition" of mid-ir was intended. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well then if you don't know and a lay reader won't care, I'm unclear why the "mid-" is needed. I went looking to see if there was some information (thinking I could add a wavelength in parentheses), but the paragraph lacked a source for looking up "mid-infrared". Thus I tagged it. Sorry.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the names used throughout the article don't identify the profession or nationality of the individual. Who are "Witteborn" and "Fanale et al."?
 * Witteborn and Fanale references have been edited out in favour of other ways of expressing the material. I think most other names in the article are historical researchers / figures whose names are wikilinked, and in some places (eg first para of "Io as a world: 1805–1973") it would be cumbersome, and probably unnecessary for the interest of the typical reader, to include further detail. In the case of this: "A few days before the Voyager 1 encounter, Stan Peale, Patrick Cassen, and R. T. Reynolds published a paper in the journal Science..." I don't think anything else can be usefully added, but the use of the names is intended to set up a cross-reference later in the article. Are there are other instances that concern you? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately then, I'll have to say that the information about individuals is presented in an inconsistent manner. The lead paragraph list the widely known Galileo Galilei as an "Italian astronomer", but says nothing about Simon Marius. (Later Galileo is listed as a "Tuscan astronomer".) In the same paragraph, Giovanni Cassini is listed as an astronomer, but Pierre-Simon Laplace is not listed as a mathematician. I'm not sure what the best approach is, but the variation struck me while reading through the article.
 * "...elliptical outline aligned with the direction of its orbital motion." Please clarify this by including a mention of the major axis.
 * "abundant water ice", "greatly restricted" and "...substantial greater imaging coverage..." are vague.
 * There is some parenthetical text that could be modified to remove the parentheses. E.g.: "(no images were available to...", "(though IRIS was not sensitive...", "(though a software algorithm...", "(forcing Galileo to transmit data..."
 * What does "...unique science..." mean?
 * I should have picked that up on my copyedit. Eliminated. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the list of references, "T. C. Van Flandern", "R. W. Carlson" and "R. T. Reynolds" are not formatted as per the other cited names. I.e. not "last, first MI".
 * Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments (Oppose) by Cryptic C62 on the talk page. Hooray for space! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes, but am out of time for now. Hopefully the nominator and others will be around to pick up more of your issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I have reviewed so far definitely prevents me from supporting this nomination, and very little has been done to address the concerns I've brought up. As such, I am opposing for now. I also think the nominator may have been eaten by bears about a week ago. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments just on the lead:
 * "third-largest"
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "observations of Io and the other Galilean satellites served a variety of purposes, such as helping map makers and surveyors measure longitude, validating Kepler's Third Law of planetary motion, and measuring the speed of light."—Why not use "moons" here, for the unititiated? I presume this means the moons that Galileo observed and recorded? Any chance of removing the "variety" phrase and just saying it helped do a, b and c?
 * I reworded to get rid of "variety" but I think using "satelites" in some places and "moons" in other helps avoid repetition. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do readers need to be told that Europa and Genymede are also moons of Jupiter?
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess all but the utter experts will need to divert to the "resonant orbits" link to find out what the term means. Pity. I guess it's cumbersome to explain on the spot, though.
 * I think it would take at least a long paragraph to explain orbital resonance, and that would be inappropriate for the lead. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the 1960s the moon's effect on Jupiter's magnetic field was discovered."—It's unclear whether you mean the existence of the effect was discovered then, or whether this was known but not quantified until the 1960s.
 * I have a hard time understanding what is unclear about "discovered" :) but I added "previously unknown" just to avoid argument. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mapped the surface of the active volcanism? ... even though the referent soon after becomes obvious.
 * I can't find the text you refer to. Perhaps someone has already fixed this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "and mapped its surface, particularly the side that faces Jupiter, in great detail" -> "and mapped its surface in great detail, particularly the side that faces Jupiter,..."
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The second "also" in that para could go.
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You could avoid further repetition by removing "on Io".
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "during parts of the mission" could be removed (unsure, but do consider if possible). Not sure "allowed" and "as a result of" are good in the same sentence; but I can live with it.
 * Reworded. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "generated plans" is a bit laboured. Plain English would have "made plans".
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * shortlist, is it? Different from a short list.
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comma after "decade"; it's odd to know already that final approval "is coming" ... hardly worth NASA's bothering with the process if there's no doubt. "expected"?
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the proposed NASA Discovery mission, the Io Volcano Observer, would explore Io"—I'm confused as to what is part of what; there are lots of missions hanging about in that para.
 * Reworded. I think it is clearer now. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * competitive process
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "utilize" is so ugly. Can we have the plain "use"?
 * Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done: this is an admirable nomination, and it deserves to succeed. I do think these issues in the lead indicate the whole article needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor, though. Tony  (talk)  14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the rest of it? Tony   (talk)  00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently Leaning Oppose If this nom were new, I wouldn't be typing this. But the writing just isn't there yet &mdash; see forex "In the late 1960s, an opportunity known as the Planetary Grand Tour was identified by the United States' NASA and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) that would allow a single spacecraft to travel past..". I did a little ce, and can do some more, but am afraid the nom will be promoted and the text will plateau. Will strike my Oppose if the prose gets help. &bull; Ling.Nut 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some CE and fixed some clumsy wording including the passage you mention. I will do some more presently. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.