Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Moons of Neptune/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Moons of Neptune[edit]

Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's the last article on the natural satellites of a gas giant in the Solar System that has not yet achieved FA status. I have tried to address as many of the unresolved comments from the previous FLC as I could, and will attempt to address all comments here as promptly as possible. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Most of the content in this article was not written by me, BTW: I simply looked at the earlier FLC and attempted to act on the comments, as well as improve the article as best as I could in some places.) Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments - taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~the lead looks choppy with isolated sentences - try to meld into three paras....~~

Triton is unique among moons of planetary mass, being an irregular satellite: - yes though technically correct, scans oddly when one reads it - I had to read it twice to check grammar. I'd reword to "Triton is unique among moons of planetary mass in that it is an irregular satellite: "

Done. Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25.1 gigametres (weird unit)- err, why not convert to km...and keep as an abbreviation...

I converted to km, but I'm not sure how to get it to abbreviate using {{convert}}. For now, the conversion is done manually until I figure it out. Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Saturn's satellite system is the next most lopsided, with most of its mass being in its largest moon Titan. Jupiter and Uranus have more balanced systems.) - (a) needs a ref ~~(b) looks weird in parentheses - could leave them out. Might look ok as a footnote too.~~

I turned it into a footnote. However, I had some trouble finding an explicit ref stating this, although it can be obtained readily from easily referenceable data values for the masses of the moons in question. (The sentence might not be needed, though.) Double sharp (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, undecided on this - happy to go with consensus on what other folks feel. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I should do anything to the first sentence, given that one of the 14 Neptunian moons has not yet been named. Double sharp (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add a footnote that one is yet to be named - one could argue to make it "13 of which.." or argue that it is a naming guideline that doesn't necessarily exclude the one yet to be named. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is what I did OK? Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support - I rarely review lists so this is sort of pending consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm worried that the lead basically, apart from one paragraph, is all about Triton. I think this may be placing undue weight on a single moon, and the lead should focus more on some aspects of the system in general and not the single moon. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to focus it more on how Triton's capture affected the Neptunian system as whole. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm still slightly worried about how much attention is given to it. I would probably cut the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead, which I think go into a little too much detail on the moon for the lead. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cut those two sentences. Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support; only concert had been addressed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Comments~~ - pretty good overall, technical without being obtuse. A few comments:

"discovery of Neptune itself: over a century passed" - should be a semicolon, not a colon
- Done. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Neptune's equatorial plane: some of these orbit" - again, not a colon- you don't use a colon to connect two independent phrases unless the second completes a set-up from the first the first or is a list specified by the first, like you do in "at high inclination: three of these".
- Done. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Voyager 2 recovered Larissa" - is recovered the right word for re-discovering or finding the specifics of?
- It is the right word, but for clarity I changed it to read "rediscovered". Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"respectively recovered all five of these moons" - if not, you use the same word again a bit later
- I changed it to "re-observed" here. Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While you usually use yyyy-mm-dd, refs 7, 10, and 28 use either day month year or month day, year
- Done. Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link Sky & Telescope in at least ref 7, if not also 22 and 23
- Done. Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although about 1/4 of the wikilinks in this list are redirecting, the only one that's really egregious is Name conflicts of solar system objects, your "see also" link in "Names".
- Fixed that one. Could you inform me where the other less egregious ones are so that I can fix them? Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: water deities, retrograde, inclined, prograde orbits. Discovery: Gerard P. Kuiper, Mark Showalter, water gods. Characteristics: Galle and LeVerrier rings, shepherd moon, Adams ring, concave, giant planets, geometrical albedo, polar cap, cryovolcanism, (in the image caption: prograde, retrograde). Table: Diameter, mass, inclination, Kuiper. Notes: Roman numeral, retrograde orbits. References: PMID, but that comes from a template, not you. --Pres N 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to these within the next few days. Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all except the PMID one. This has however generated lots of links to retrograde and prograde motion. Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider archiving your online-only sources with something like archive.org or webcitation.org, so that changes/removals of content at those sources don't destroy your citations.
--Pres N 19:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to support, listed the redirects above. --Pres N 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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