Wikipedia:Peer review/Saturn/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saturn[edit]

This article is already a GA. However, I wish to promote it to FA status, of which it has a great potential. Therefore, I nominate it for a Peer Review. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 13:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJH[edit]

It's getting better, but I think it still needs a little work. So here goes:

  • I'd like to see the "History" section expanded to include history of the planet, and so moved to a separate section (or combined with Exploration). See for example Venus#Studies_of_Venus.
    • Will be in-progress soon; I will notify and ask for feedback when this is done. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 10:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Done: I have expanded the "History and exploration" section to include more about Saturn's ancient status and post-Reformation discoveries. How is it now? Does it still need to be expanded? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 11:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there is a "Best viewing of Saturn" section, it does not correspond to the sections on viewing at Venus#Observation or Jupiter#Observation. In particular there is no discussion of retrograde motion.
  • There is no section on the orbit of Saturn (see Jupiter#Orbit_and_rotation). "Rotational behavior"
    • Done: I have renamed the section to "Orbit and rotation" and have expanded it a bit to include information about its orbit. How is it now? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs, particularly in the "Cassini orbiter" section.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Wording, the name "Saturn" should not typically be restated in the section headings.
  • Could the article explain what is generating the magnetosphere on Saturn? The magnetosphere section seems very short; can more be added?[1]
  • Is there a reference for the sentence that begins "The cause of the change is unknown..."?
  • Could "Maxwell and Keeler gaps" be explained?
  • The references could use some work; many are missing details such as author or publication date. Reference #15, for example, does not include the full author name, the date, volume, or pages. The use of the anime web site "Sailor Moon" as a reference (#4) seems inappropriate. Please use a better reference. Please fix "[[2007-07-06]]" in the #14 reference. The link for #37 and #38 are also broken.
    • Almost-done: The references have been taken care of, except the Sailor Moon one, for which I will try to find a better ref. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 10:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik[edit]

Review My general impression is that the article isn't ready for FA. It is not comprehensive and well sourced. The references are mostly various webcites that often don't cite their own sources. The rare good references are usually old and originate mostly from the Voyager era. Some statements are simply wrong. Now some examples:

  • 1) Infobox doesn't have any references although many of values aren't repeated in the text;
  • I'm satisfied however some reviewers in FAC can demand a ref near every number. Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) The first paragraph in the "Physical characteristics" section doesn't cite any sources;
  • 3) In "Composition" subsection the phrase "consists of about 93.2% molecular hydrogen and 6.7% helium" is wrong: modern value for helium is close to 15 %. The ref [9] is obviously too old;
    • I'm going to speculate that the difference can be accounted for based on whether the value is by volume or by mass. But the article really should clarify that. (C.f. Jupiter#Composition.) — RJH (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4) In the same subsection the sentence "The quantity of elements heavier than helium are not known precisely, but the proportions are assumed to match the primordial abundances from the formation of the Solar System." is wrong: heavy elements are now known to be overabudant in Saturn much like in Jupiter;
  • 5) In the "Internal structure" subsection the phrase "having a small rocky core made up mostly of the elements hydrogen and helium at the center" is contradictory. If it's made of H and He, how can it be rocky ? This subsection is also lacking necessary references;
  • I think the core is actually rocks+ices and the phrase is still not very good. I tweaked it slightly removing "at the center". Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6) The "Clouds layers" subsection contains few sources and should be expanded. It is focused too much on the polar vortex, which is IMO of minor importance. In addition the phrase "that Saturn has a warm polar vortex, and is the only such planet known in the solar system" is wrong since polar vortexes are observed on Venus. The phrase "because eyewall clouds have not been seen on any planet other than Earth" in the next paragraph is wrong by the same reason;
    • WRONG: Yes, polar vortexes have been observed on other planets, but Saturn is the only planet on which it is warm. [2] has more info. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7) The section "Magnetic field and magnetosphere" is too short. It claims that "Its strength is one fifth than that of the field around Jupiter (although stronger than Earth's magnetic field), giving the Saturn a smaller magnetosphere", which is completlely wrong. The strenth of the cronian magnetic field at the equator is 0.2×10−5 T or 0.2 G (can be calculated from the magnetic moment in [23]), of the terrestrial one – 0.35 G, and of the jovian – 4.2 G. In addition the section should discuss the influence of the inner moons on the magnetosphere;
    • Actually, I am not an expert at mathematically calculating the powers of magnetic fields. So, can I kindly ask you to please fix that. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed this subsection. Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8) The section about rings cite only few sources and the first two paragraphs in the "Physical characteristics" subsection are devoid of them at all. The same can be said about "Spokes of the rings" subsection.
  • I think enough. Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list isn't complete. I only gave some examples. The article IMO should be focused mainly on the planet itself because rings and moons have their own articles. Ruslik 08:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the concerns raised in both reviews have been taken care of. However, as of yet, I have not received any replies on my askings of how the new versions of the suggested changes are. Any further reviews would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the number refs is OK I would like to see more citations from peer reviewed sources, i.e. [3] or even pdf files is they are freely accessable. Ruslik 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of adding a couple of citations throughout the article. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Saturn/archive1&oldid=1145631195"