Talk:Styx (moon)/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, this one is a little outside of my comfort zone! But very readable and easy to understand. Just a couple of very minor points.

• "20.2 ± 0.1": The article uses this quite a lot, and while I appreciate the need for accuracy, i wonder if the lead should just use an approximation as the general reader may not be familiar with ±. But not a big deal, and feel free to completely disagree.

• Agree, done.

• "to material kicked up by meteoroid impacts": Kicked up appears a little unencyclopedic.

• Changed.

• "It is thought to have formed from the debris lofted by a collision (see below)": I'm never too convinced about "see below". I think it works without this, and would be further made unnecessary if the origin section was moved above the physical properties section. However, this may not fit in with project/MoS guidelines.

• Reordered. Visited solar system project page and a few other moon pages, and there did not appear to be a project template for the order.

• "very nearly circular and coplanar, "neatly nested ... a bit like Russian dolls"." Looking at the source, I think this needs in-text attribution to make clear that an astronomer said this, rather than just being a quote from the article.

• Good point. Also prompted me to revise it to make clear that the person saying that was the moon's discoverer.

• I assume that we don't currently know the mass of the satellite?

• Not in the sources I have read. The highly variable estimates for radius support the inference that mass is not known.

• The image is fine, and spot-checks reveal no issues. Dablinks and external links are fine.

There may be a few issues for the general reader in this one, but that is unavoidable and not an issue for GA I don't think. I have a rather rusty basic background in physics/astronomy and followed it comfortably enough. I'll place this on hold for the moment and pass once these points are answered. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Sarastro. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Everything looks good, passing now. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2012 (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.