Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titania (moon)/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:53, 10 October 2009 [1].

---

Titania (moon)

Nominator(s): Ruslik_Zero 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Titania (moon)/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I think the article about the largest moon of Uranus is ready to become featured. Ruslik_Zero 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - No issues; didn't check ALT text. NW (Talk) 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent article. About time!
• Titania probably underwent an early endogenically–driven resurfacing event that obliterated its older, heavily cratered surface. - is that an endash? If so, it should be a dash
• Infrared spectroscopy conducted in 2001–2005 revealed the presence of water ice as well as carbon dioxide on the surface of Titania, which in turn gave rise to an idea that the moon may possess a tenuous carbon dioxide atmosphere with a surface pressure of about one 10 trillionth of a bar. - conducted from...
• The resurfacing may have been either endogenic in nature, involving the eruption of fluid material via interior (cryovolcanism) - could you replace 'via'?
• The geology of Titania was influenced by two competing forces: impact crater formation and endogenic resurfacing.[29] - Plz link endogenic in the lead instead

ceranthor 23:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed all above. Ruslik_Zero 07:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Well written and comprehensively covers the major known facts about this satellite of Uranus. The only thing I could think to change would be to maybe replace the Messina Chasma image in the Surface Features section with perhaps a labeled global image pointing out the locations of features described in the section, or with a montage of cutouts showing these features. Might make it easier for readers to follow along. --Volcanopele (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, I will make a labeled image. Ruslik_Zero 12:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I had been thinking the same thing. It would be nice to see craters such as Calphurnia also labeled. -- Kheider (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ruslik_Zero 15:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. No major problems that I could see. Serendi^podous 11:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A couple of tiny tweaks I did, otherwise good to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support but please cleanup the table a bit: move the feature type one column to the left; why is "Belmont Chasma"/"Chasma" and "Adriana"/"Crater" is not "Adriana Crater"/"Crater"; merge row 2&3 for the type column. Also, the caption "Messina Chasma" should be expanded. Nergaal (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  I expanded the caption and merged the cells. However I think that specifying "crater" is not necessary, because majority of features are craters. "Crater" is a default here. I only specified "chasma" or "rupes", because they are different. In addition, craters are frequently called simply by their names without specifying that a feature is a crater. Ruslik_Zero 18:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support I made a tiny change Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looks great to me. I will be glad to see the moon (one size below Pluto) finally featured. :) -- 15:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• CUrrent ref 2 (Planetary Sattellite ..) lacks a last access date. (i'd have fixed it myself but I couldn't figure out where to fix it in your referencing templates..)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I added accessdate. Ruslik_Zero 15:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments—It looks to be FA quality for the most part. There were just a couple of paragraphs where I had concerns:
  • "It might be produced locally from carbonates or organic materials under the influence of the energetic charged particles coming from the magnetosphere of Uranus or solar ultraviolet radiation." This sentence has some ambiguity because it implies the 'solar ultraviolet radiation' consists of 'energetic charged particles'.

    I swapped 'solar ultraviolet radiation' with 'energetic charged particles'. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The next sentence only seems relevant to the statement about charged particles coming from the magnetosphere. It makes little sense in the context of solar UV, unless I'm missing something. "This hypothesis would explain the asymmetry in its distribution, because the trailing hemisphere is subject to a more intense magnetospheric influence than the leading hemisphere."

    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • "The peculiar geometry of the Uranian system causes the moons' poles to be warmer on average than their equatorial regions." I'm not sure I fully grasp this one. My intuition tells me the poles will experience warm and cold extremes that will average out. Is it because, when comparing to the equator, the temperatures during the polar warm periods outweigh the cold periods?—RJH (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

    The poles receive more solar heat than the equator. So, it is plausible that they are on average warmer. I changed the sentence to say specifically that the poles receive more solar energy than the equator leaving out possible effects. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

    Perfect. Thanks.—RJH (talk)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. High-quality article. Comments
• "the former appears to be redder than the latter by 8%" - please explain how the color was evaluated here. Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  I added a note. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• "a system of enormous canyons (grabens)" - It is unclear here and further in the text whether or not graben=canyon. If yes, I would use canyon instead of graben (technical term) all through the article. Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  I removed grabens from the lead and added a clarification in the main text. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:Messina Chasma.jpg - please add a pointer identifying Messina Chasma there.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is it necessary? The surface features are labeled on the nearby image. In addition, Messina Chasma is the most prominent features and unlikely to be confused with anything else. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  Adding an arrow and a note in that image file will increase the clarity of that individual image and will help the reader (no need to zoom another image to understand this one). Thus no, not necessary, but would be nice. Materialscientist (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOS#Images, is it possible to juggle the images in the "Surface features" section so that text isn't squeezed between two images? I was going to attempt this myself, but didn't find an optimal way to do it. Also, please note and review these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.