Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volcanism on Io
- 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 04:27, 19 October 2008 [1].
Volcanism on Io edit
- Nominator(s): Volcanopele (talk); Huntster (talk)
This article has just gone through a peer review, improving the quality of the citations, and conforming this article to WP:MOS. Peer review also greatly improved the prose. --Volcanopele (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as LPSC in the references.
- Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have spelled out the first instance of each journal (and LPSC), and used abbreviations for later references for GRL and JGR (Geophys. Res. Lett. and J. Geophys. Res., common abbreviations used in journal references). --Volcanopele (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this very interesting article back in mid-September and all my concerns were addressed. In my opinion it now meets the criteria to be a FA. - Yohhans talk 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support—I reviewed this article when it was in Peer Review and I have no doubt that it satisfies all FA-criteria except may be 1a. I think some sentences are too complicated and some words are used too often ('lava', for instance, or 'flow'). A copy-edit may be necessary. Ruslik (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you any suggestions of what to replace those words with? They are more technical terms, and have no ready synonyms that I can identify. Yes, there are quite a few technical ideas, but this is a science-oriented article, and I don't think this can be avoided. Wikilinks abound for the more confusing stuff, while care has been taken to avoid overlinking. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand this, but some use of "lava" is clearly excessive. Two exemples: "Ionian lava lakes are depressions partially filled with molten lava covered by a thin crust of cooled, solidified lava". I think it can be written simply as "Ionian lava lakes are depressions partially filled with molten lava covered by a thin solidified crust." It is clear that the crust is made of solidified lava. Another example "These lava lakes are directly connected to a magma reservoir lying below the lava lake." Why not to change it to "These lava lakes are directly connected to a magma reservoir lying below." It is quite obvious that the reservior is below the lake. Ruslik (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to remove the number instances of the word lava in the article to reduce redundancy. The problem results from the lack of synonyms that would be recognizable by the layman. But you are correct, simply rearranging some sentences can help. I have also added your two suggested edits. --Volcanopele (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand this, but some use of "lava" is clearly excessive. Two exemples: "Ionian lava lakes are depressions partially filled with molten lava covered by a thin crust of cooled, solidified lava". I think it can be written simply as "Ionian lava lakes are depressions partially filled with molten lava covered by a thin solidified crust." It is clear that the crust is made of solidified lava. Another example "These lava lakes are directly connected to a magma reservoir lying below the lava lake." Why not to change it to "These lava lakes are directly connected to a magma reservoir lying below." It is quite obvious that the reservior is below the lake. Ruslik (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I tweaked a bit, and there is still a little repetition but I found it extremely hard to remove more without losing meaning. Prose good I think now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Fascinating article, well-written and well-sourced, plus excellent imagery. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Overall good work: I didn't find any significant weaknesses or issues, and it appears to satisfy the FA criteria. However, it does seems a little goofy to me to say "2,000 K (1,730 °C/3,140 °F)", with the Kelvin temperature rounded off to a single digit while there are three digits for centigrade and fahreheit. You might want to add a '|sigfig=2' parameter to the convert template in those cases.—RJH (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]