Talk:Puck (moon)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the lead you say "It was discovered in December 1985 by Voyager 2 spacecraft." Wouldn't it be "the Voyager 2"? Also, in the body you italicize Voyager 2, but in the lead it's plain, so this should be standardized.
   • In the Physical characteristics section, you say "Puck is the largest of small inner satellites of Uranus. It is intermediate in size between Portia and Miranda, the smallest of the five larger satellites." Should this be "the smallest of the five outer satellites"?

   No. There are satellites further from Uranus than the largest five that are much smaller.--Patteroast (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

   I guess my question is - how can they be the "five larger satellites" if there is something (Puck) bigger than one of them (Portia). Unless I'm reading this wrong (in which case it probably needs to be clarified), you're saying that Portia and Miranda are two of the five largest satellites, but Portia is actually the sixth largest, because Puck is bigger, but it's not called a "large satellite" so there are actually only five? Can you see where I'm a little confused? Dana boomer (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

   • In the same section, you say "However the absence of craters with bright rays implies that it is probably not differentiated and is made of a mixture of water ice with the dark material similar to that found in the rings." I would like to see some more information in this sentence. What does it mean to be differentiated? What is the dark material made of? The fact that it's similar to the rings is nice, but doesn't tell me what it actually is. The article is obviously not approaching the size limit, so adding more information can only be beneficial.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

There are just a couple of prose issues, so I am putting the article on hold. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I italicized Voyager 2. However I think the article should say that Voayger 2 is a spacecraft, because readers may not know this. I tried to clarify the size comparison. If it is still not clear tell me. You can also read Moons of Uranus. I also expanded the last paragraph adding more information about chemical composition and internal structure. Ruslik (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, guess I should have been clearer. I didn't want "spacecraft" removed. I wanted "the" added before Voyager 2, so that it read "the Voyager 2 spacecraft" instead of "Voyager 2 spacecraft". I'll take a look at the rest of the stuff in a little while. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I added 'the'. Ruslik (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a little bit to get back to this. Everything looks good with the article, and so I'm going to pass it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)