Talk:Cryovolcano/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Nominator: ArkHyena (talk · contribs) 05:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. A bit out of my wheelhouse, but it looks like a fun read. I should get to it over the weekend! Fritzmann (message me) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

No citation is given for the informal name "ice volcano", and it doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the body
"common amongst" perhaps to "common on"?
"As such, cryovolcanism is important to the geological histories of these worlds" seems overly vague, and I don't really learn anything from it as a reader. A bit more detail as to what impact it has on the history is probably warranted
Is there a reason that only the last sentence of the lead is cited? I notice you discuss the internal heat aspect in the Pluto/Charon section; can it be stated more explicitly and in more detail there so as to remove the need for references in the lead (i.e. move the refs to the body and expand on the idea there)

Mechanisms

"A major challenge in models of cryovolcanic mechanisms..." so do we not actually know what the mechanisms are? It would be good to have an explanation and make it clear whether these statements are hypotheses or observations, as I had some difficulties discerning between the two in the text
"It has been proposed" by whom?
Some of this first paragraph, like the piece about ammonia, seems like it would belong better in the Composition section
"whence cryomagma may ascend from" --> "from which cryomagma may ascend"
The second paragraph of the Reservoirs section exemplifies my previous concern, does the "may" mean that it does happen that way as well, or that is hypothesized to maybe be able to happen that way?
The one sentence of the Composition section is not cited
The table in the Composition section should probably be turned into plaintext, or its content should at least be summarized in plaintext

Types

I think this section would be better placed in front of Mechanisms
"expected to be driven by the exsolvation of dissolved volatile gasses as pressure drops whilst cryomagma ascends" whew this is a bit much for me as a layman. Is there another way to say exsolvation at least? I think I get the rest of it but that word is a sticking point
"No instances of active effusive cryovolcanism have been observed" again, this would be a good preface, and the rest of the material in the paragraph should be qualified with that disclaimer. From my first time reading it, I get the impression that effusive cryovolcanism is an established process we've observed in action, not the hypothetical mechanism for structures that we've seen and assume are a result of it

Observations

Years for these observations would be really helpful; for example: when did the Dawn orbiter arrive at Ceres?
"impact-induced upwelling" is this another type of cryovolcanism that should be mentioned in the mechanisms or types sections? I don't recall there being mention of impacts spurring an eruption
"may indicate that Ceres had a subsurface ocean in its past" how so? I'm not making the connection here
"which are hypothesized" by whom?
First sentence of Europa section has some grammar issues that make it difficult to parse
"dense web of lineae" what are lineae?
Link or explain subduction
"few, if any ,..."
The timeline in the second paragraph of Europa should be more detailed. When is "in the past", when did the Hubble telescope "hint" at cryovolcanism, and how recent is "more recent"?
What observations did Hubble make that provided evidence of cryovolcanoes?
What is "chaos terrain"?
"has been interpreted" by whom?
What is a "cryovolcanic cone"? This is its first mention, and it is not explained elsewhere
Where is Argadnel Regio on Europa? Is there a wikilink that would explain this, like a list of geographical features?
"which have been identified" by whom and when?
In the Enceladus section, you mention "feeding rings"... this seems like a really important part of cryovolcanism that isn't elaborated on at all. How do they feed the rings? What does that process look like? Are all outer planet rings a result of cryovolcanism? I would at least include a paragraph on this, probably in the Mechanisms section
"form from maar-like eruptions" what is a maar-like eruption?

References

I notice that you give page numbers for some references, and not others. Is there a reason for this, and can you standardize it?
Yeah, looking at several of the references, a whole paper is given without page numbers for the claim quite often. I would really rather not read a 27-page article to hunt down the specific claims, so page numbers or at least ranges are going to be needed for some of these longer refs, like #2. Once these are given and the majority of the prose issues are taken care of, I'll do a careful reference sweep

General

I notice there is no discussion of the history of discovery of cryovolcanoes. When were they first hypothesized, who coined the term, and when were they confirmed?
There are weasel phrases throughout the article. I've pointed out some of them, but there are many more that need to be addressed
There are a few instances of a "-" being used for a range of numbers, instead of an en-dash ("–")
Can any of the images in the gallery be moved to more appropriate locations within the article, to more effectively illustrate it?
While the prose is generally very well written, it suffers from not explaining terms used in this very narrow subfield. I've pointed out a few, but niche technical terms need to be either wikilinked or explained, and preferably both are done

Please drop me a ping once you've finished with these comments so I can knock out the source review! I apologize for the delay, I've had a few other projects going on and finals are taking up quite a bit of time. Good luck! Fritzmann (message me) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]