Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rings of Uranus


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:05, 9 July 2008.

Rings of Uranus

 * Nominator(s): Ruslik (talk), WolfmanSF (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone significant expansion in the last several months and satisfies FA criteria now. The article is about the ring system of solar system planet Uranus. Ruslik (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could the first image on the right be scaled down without compromising its detail? Rudget   ( logs ) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I decreased the size. I may need to increase the size of the fonts in the image though. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Extensive and comprehensive article complicit with 1a & 1b. Sourcing is consistent and formatted appropriately. Intriguing article and I doubt that there will be any more issues ascertained by those who participate in the FAC discussions. Brilliant article. Thanks for rectifying the issue I mentioned above. Rudget   ( logs ) 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash;I performed a PR of this article back in May. At the time it already seemed FA worthy, and a check through now shows that the article remains in fine form. Hence I am lending my support.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I suggest staggering the images, especially since they all get bumped down on my 1440x900 screen. Gary King ( talk ) 16:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved one image to the left. However moving other images may interfere with headings. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 7 Showalter, Mark R. Lissauer J.J. et. al. "The Outer Dust Rings of Uranus..." is lacking a publisher, which I believe would be the magazine the abstract is from?
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look okay, and the links check out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Comments  beginning a read-through. Need to watch redundant repetition in prose. I tried to remove as much repetition as I could and improve the flow but I concede this is tricky to do without losing meaning. I think a good balance has been struck now, though maybe a little more could be done I think we're just over the line prose-wise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the first sentence adds nothing and is redundant and sentence 2 can go as either first or second sentence in para 2. This also brings the bolded bit (sentence 3) to the top of the article. Seriously, have a look in 'preview'
 * I actually merged two first sentences reducing redundancy. Putting the former sentence 2 after the sentence about discovery will split the historical summary. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe I was a bit overzealous. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More than 200 years ago, William Herschel also reported observing rings (around Uranus),  - remove bracketed bit - clear from flow where rings are


 * The rings (of Uranus) are extremely dark - remove bracketed bit - clear from flow where rings are


 * of the rings particles does not exceed 2%.  - rings'


 * The majority of Uranus's rings are narrow and optically dense—they are only a few kilometres wide and have optical depth on order of unity - I don't know what this means, so needs explaining.
 * I deleted 'optical density' from the sentence replacing it with opacity and rearranged the sentence. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The paucity of dust  - 'relative lack of dust' maybe? Not hugely fussed.
 * Changed. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The ring system was definitively discovered on March 10, 1977 by James L. Elliot, Edward W. Dunham, and Douglas J. Mink using the Kuiper Airborne Observatory.  how about 'Astronomers James L. Elliot, Edward W. Dunham, and Douglas J. Mink made the definitive (and accidental) discovery on March 10, 1977 using the Kuiper Airborne Observatory.' - this makes teh prose more diverse and reduces repetition, and is active tense. Slipping in 'accidental' allows one to delete the repetitive The discovery was serendipitous;


 * In December 2005, the Hubble Space Telescope detected a pair of previously unknown rings.  --> 'The Hubble Space Telescope detected a pair of previously unknown rings in December 2005, bringing the total number to 13.' (and allowing removal of last sentence)
 * Fixed (all above). Ruslik (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Uranian rings can be divided into three groups: nine narrow main rings (6, 5, 4, α, β, η, γ, δ, ε),[1] two dusty rings (1986U2R/ζ, λ)[6] and two outer rings (μ, ν). - take your pick - remove rings from the last three, or the first one to 'they'.
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to remove some redundancy as I go - corret me if I inadvertently change meaning. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This means that their albedo is much lower, when they observed slightly off the opposition. - is this the same as 'viewed from an angle' in colloquial english?
 * "off opposition" means that the angle (phase angle) between the object-Sun line and object-observer line is not zero. The opposition is when Earth is at the line connecting Uranus and Sun. Ruslik (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, might be worth explaining then. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a note. Ruslik (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments after going quickly through the article:
 * 1) The introduction might be overly detailed/long. For example, the William Herschel idea may be shortened to something like: "although WH made some doubtful claims 200 years earlier.
 * I shortened it a bit. Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Several names of the ζ ring are used, including ζ/1986U2R, and 1986U2R/ζ. I suggest either stick to the Greek letter, or decide which one is more used in academia. You could probably rename its section to ζ(1986U2R).
 * The parameters of 1986U2R and &zeta; rings are different (see Table). They are treated as separate rings in literature. It is actually not know if they are the same ring that has changed its appearence since 1986. Though I change the order of names from ζ/1986U2R to 1986U2R/ζ in the lead matching the main text. Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Why are the rings named this way? Why some use numerals while some use Greek letters? Was it the order they were discovered?
 * I expanded the discovery section. Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I suggest moving Exploration and Herschel's observations up and merge them into the discovery section (rename it as Historic?).
 * I merged Herschel's observations to Discovery. However the Exploration need to be kept separate from it, because it contains technical details that do not fit into Discovery section.Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Where are 1, 2, and 3? Were they renamed? This might be written somewhere, but I suggest put the history of the names in the first section. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They have never existed. 1,2, ... is numbering of the observed events in one paper. Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The format now introduces the rings much better.Nergaal (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: Another really wonderful solar system article from Ruslik (and Wolfman)! This article is quite good. Just a few observations, in addition to Nergaal's, directly above.

Support. My concerns have been addressed; well done.
 * Thanks for the thorough review. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. More than 200 years ago, William Herschel also reported observing rings modern astronomers are sceptical that he could actually have noticed them, as they are very dark and faint. "Skeptical" is misspelled, and may I suggest a semicolon after "rings"?
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. The majority of Uranus's rings are opaque and only a few kilometres wide, which means that they have optical depth on order of unity or more. Perhaps wikilink optical depth and unity, or explain them to the reader in layman's terms? The footnote leaves me clueless, and this is coming from someone who knows what albedo is, and who can calculate diameter based on absolute magnitude.
 * I removed 'optical depth' from the lead&mdash;not necessary here. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3. the star disappeared briefly from view five times both before and after it disappeared behind the planet. They concluded that there must be a ring system around the planet.[2] The rings were directly imaged when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew through the Uranian system in 1986.[3] Voyager 2 also discovered two additional faint rings, bringing the total to eleven.[3] A continuity issue: the rings go from numbering five in 1977 to eleven in 1986 when just two more were discovered. 5+2=11?
 * I expanded 'Discovery' section. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4. 1986U2R/ζ Rings and moons are usually formally named when their existence is confirmed. Is the 1986UR2 still necessary?
 * See 2) above. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5. The rings of Uranus mainly consist of large particles and but little dust Suggest "particles but little dust".
 * Since dust also consists of (small) particles a clarification is necessary. I changed 'large' to 'macroscopic'. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6. The width variations were measured directly from Voyager 2 images, as the ε ring was one of only two rings resolved by Voyager’s cameras.[3] This statement is made directly above a Voyager 2 picture clearly showing five rings!
 * Resolved means here that the finite width was observed, not that they were detected. The non zero width of the rings other than &epsilon; and &eta; is result of image smear. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7. The ε ring is known to have interior and exterior shepherd moons—Cordelia and Ophelia, respectively. Little focus is given to the shepherd moon phenomenon at Uranus; this section is all of three sentences; the dynamics aren't explained at all here.
 * The explanation is in 'Dynamics and origin' section. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8. Like majority of other rings the η ring shows significant I suggest "like the majority".
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9. In 1986 Voyager 2 noticed a broad and faint sheet of material inward of the 6 ring.[3]  "Noticed"-> "detected"; it is a machine, after all.
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10. R/2003 R1 and R2 are the provisional names of μ and ν rings. The article states they were discovered in 2005; why then the "2003" prefix attached to their provisional names? A number like that almost always indicates the year they were first detected. I suggest 2005 was the year they were confirmed, not discovered.
 * I changed to 2003–2005. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than these observations, you've done a wonderful job with this article. As always, I'm available to assist, if needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I cleaned up a few things. There are inconsistencies of decimal place in the table, and < and ~ need to be spaced. Sometimes you use that dreadful e notation template that squashes up the items; sometimes you space them. Nice work. TONY   (talk)  12:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I cleaned up the issues you mentioned. Ruslik (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice job on the copyedit.  Serendi pod ous  17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.