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

The article was promoted 13:35, August 2, 2007.

---

Saturn[edit]

Self-Nomination: I have been working on this article for a couple of weeks now, and I think that it is ready for FA status. Most of the concerns raised at a Peer Review were taken care of. Furthermore, I believe that it follows all of the Manuals of Style. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 10:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — It looks pretty decent, but I see a few issues:
  • No mention is made of the substantial helium depletion detected by the Voyager missions.
    •  Not done Well, that particular section is written in Summary Style; so, I guess that it would be better not to go into particular details. What do you think? Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't actually mean to imply that it should go in the "Voyager flybys" section. It's more appropriate to the composition section. But it is an important point and should be included, as it may relate to the helium precipitation that is heating the core. — RJH (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The internal heat generation needs to be referenced. You might also mention that the radiated heat is 2½ times the amount received from the Sun.[1]
    •  Done Info added and ref cited. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 10:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention is made of lightning detected on Saturn.[2]
    •  Done A paragraph added about the lightning with ref. Is it good or does it need to be improved? Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Cloud layers" section doesn't actually discuss the vertical structure of Saturn's cloud layers. E.g.: [3]
    •  Done Information added about vertical atmospheric layers, + ref. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a brief mention made of the 5:2 mean-motion resonance between Jupiter and Saturn.
    •  Not done Where exactly can I add that? Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Orbit and rotation" section would seem an appropriate choice. Some refs.:[4][5][6][7] — RJH (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I still do not understand what it means and where to add it. So, can I kindly ask you to please add it for me. Thanks. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, have you taken a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Saturn? — RJH (talk)

• Comment Support - looks nice at first glance. Will add some notes on a further look:

Wind speeds on Saturn can reach 1,800 km/h, (which is) significantly faster than those on Jupiter.

•  Done Redundant words removed. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn has a planetary magnetic field (that is) intermediate in strength between that of Earth and the more powerful field around Jupiter.

•  Done Redundant words removed. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both bracketed bits can be removed as redundant - the sentences flow better without.

Saturn has been known since prehistoric times - this sentence reduplicates info in the Ancient times and observation subsection and could be removed

•  Done Statement removed. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 10:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Physical characteristics it compares Jupiter's mass to Saturn but saturn's isn't mentioned (in terms of earth multiples).

Relative to the abundance of the elements in the Sun, the atmosphere of Saturn is significantly deficient in helium. - flip the clauses, then you can lose the comma and it flows better

•  Done Clauses flipped, comma lost. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

average close to one kilometer in thickness - "around" or "almost" sound better than "close to"

•  Done Changed to "approximately" Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn's rings were not known to be existent.. - "Saturn's rings were unknown.." or "not known to exist"

•  Done Changed to "not known to exist" Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably leave out mention of hydrocarbon lakes on titan as it doesn't pertain directly to saturn.

The stubby section In various cultures WRT names etc should somehow be merged into a name section - maybe History and Naming. Furthermore there is no mention in the main text of what is touched on WRT its name in the lead. Granted it is hard to expand but still everything in the lead should be in the main article.

•  Not done Well, that section is not about the etymology of Saturn and about how it was originally named but rather about how ancient/modern foreign astronomies related to myths and cultures put Saturn. I am not sure how that can be merged with the "History" section. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take on it would be that all the names have some mythological significance, and so this fits in well with Ancient times and observation - in fact you could place the material after sentence two. The info about the rings is distinct enough to warrant a separate paragraph which you couldn't do as is as it would leave the first 2 sentences very stubby. Ancient knowledge of planets was tied up with mythology - but this isn't reflected in the article - that's why advocated a name change then it is nice and chonological - ancient --> modern. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done I have merged the two sections. How is it now? Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I agree with RJH about the lightning, ratios with Jupiter's orbit, and other points he raised.

Overall, though, a good read and very nearly there. This one shapes up better prose-wise than Mars did on first read-through when it got to FAC. Good job and the end is within sight. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it seems like you put a lot of work into it, great article, it's got my vote. -Flubeca^Talk 02:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; it is just as informative as the Jupiter article, which is featured. Serendipodous 08:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1a, 1c, 2 (continued oppose below).
  • Uncited and weasle words (what past issue? ): Some ground-based visual observers have claimed having seen the spokes in some large telescopes, as reported in a past issue of Sky & Telescope magazine.
    •  Done Unnecessary sentence removed. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncited, and I can't decipher its meaning: While it is a rewarding target for observation for most of the time it is visible in the sky, Saturn and its rings are best seen when the planet is at or near opposition (the configuration of a planet when it is at an elongation of 180° and thus appears opposite the Sun in the sky). In the opposition on January 13, 2005, Saturn appeared at its brightest until it will in 2031, mostly due to a favorable orientation of the rings relative to the Earth.
    •  Done Reference added. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Some MOS issues:
  • Pls review and correct WP:DASH (no unspaced emdashes).
    •  Done All emdashes un-spaced. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 16:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls review WP:UNITS, many units are missing conversions, ((convert)) may help.
    •  Done It took a long time, but I have finally had all (or most, if my eyes accidentally skipped some; please inform me in that case) the units converted. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed reference styles: ... than it does in the southern (Henshaw, C., 2003).[44]
    •  Done Henshaw ref removed because there is already ref #44 for it. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOSNUM on dates: Saturn was first visited by Pioneer 11 on September, 1979.
    •  Done Corrected. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• References are not completely and correctly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). All sources need a publisher, websources need a last access date, and author and publication date should be given when available.
  •  Done Most of the refs are already formatted well. Publishers are put where available. Access-dates were on all but two, both of which were filled in by me. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• External links need pruning per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT (for example, about.com is not a reliable source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "External Links" section trimmed by User:Serendipodous. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intensely dislike having my comments green-marked, because they clutter the FAC and obscure reviewers' comments; my comments should be considered addressed when I strike them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I do it all the time..but have a look at Circeus' neat trick here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried it once, don't like it. As soon as "we" start hiding our addressed comments, someone else will start hiding them as well, and they may not be addressed. I don't want to have to come back to every FAC to see if someone else hid my comments, any more than I want to come back to a FAC to see if someone erroneously checked my comments as "done" when they may not be. We need to get this to stop; it's cluttering FACs and obscuring what is truly "done" according to the reviewer. The instructions are clear; reviewers strike comments when they are done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I find the "Done" and "Not done" templates to be the best form of replying in article reviews. If not, then what were they created for originally anyways? Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my Oppose here below, top is cluttered. These are samples only; please do not check them "done" and consider my object resolved. These items need to be addressed throughout:

• A good deal of text is cited to Bernd Onasch's homepage (self-published)? Who is he, what makes him a reliable source, and can't this data be cited to another source? Further, it's a German language website, so I can't determine who he is. I'm surprised that info can't be found on a reliable English-language source for a major planet.
• No publisher identified, no idea who this is or what makes it a reliable source. Saturn's Known Satellites. Retrieved on May 23, 2007.
• Who is Robin, and what makes http://www.eternalsailormoon.org/ reliable? Sailormoon Terms and Information. Robin (1996). Retrieved on July 5, 2007.
• What makes http://www.crystalinks.com/ reliable?
• No publisher identified, don't know what makes it reliable. Hamilton, Calvin (1997). Voyager Saturn Science Summary. Retrieved on July 5, 2007.
• Ditto. Arnett, Bill (May 11, 2005). Saturn. Retrieved on July 15, 2007.
• A Yahoo, Geocities personal website? Kepler's Law and the Mass of Jupiter. Yahoo! Geocites. Retrieved on July 15, 2007.
• On the other hand, this source has a publisher identified, an unformatted publication date, but at least I can determine it's a reliable source:
  • Munsell, Kirk (2005-04-06). The Story of Saturn. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory; California Institute of Technology. Retrieved on July 7, 2007.

That is my review of the first ten sources used only. This is a planet; there must be reliable hard-print sources. Why are we relying on personal websites? Please review all sources for reliability and complete all information on sources, including the publisher, which will reveal personal websites.

• I was not able to verify any of this text to the source given. The source has multiple pages, so perhaps I scrolled through them incorrectly. Please provide a direct citation that allows me to verify each piece of this paragraph. For a scientific article, the level and reliability of sourcing should be high; this should not be a difficult topic to source correctly. (For example, Io (moon) just passed FAC, and it seems to be sourced almost exclusively to scientific journals.)
  • Saturn is the most distant of the five planets easily visible to the naked eye, the other four being Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter (Uranus is visible to the naked eye in very dark skies), and was the last planet known to early astronomers until Uranus was discovered in 1781. Saturn appears to the naked eye in the night sky as a bright, yellowish star varying usually between magnitude +1 and 0 and takes approximately 29½ years to make a complete circuit of the ecliptic against the background constellations of the zodiac. Optical aid (large binoculars or a telescope) magnifying at least 20X is required to clearly resolve Saturn's rings for most people.^[1]
• There is still uncited text throughout.
• My units, dash, mixed refs, MOSNUM, and external link concerns appear to be addressed, except that I'm not sure you've used the correct symbol for a negative sign (see WP:MOSNUM; it shouldn't be a hyphen.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My reply to all of these would be the following: Why does a publisher need to be there in order to make it a reliable source? WP:SPS says that self-published sources may be used in some cases. For the Geocites website, it clearly states where the data would obtain from; so, I would think that it is acceptable. Yes, the Sailormoon website is bad; I will try to find a better source instead of it. Other than that, I think that all sources are fine. For example, look at other FA's. Many do not even list the author or the access-dates. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, most (I would assume 90%) of the references in the article are from respectable sources (journals, BBC, American Astronomical Society, NASA, etc.). The small amount of the rest that are not can come under the "exceptions" category as per WP:SPS. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, supplying the publisher doesn't make a source reliable; it makes it apparent when reliable sources aren't used, and lets Wiki readers know when quality sources are used. Often missing publishers are a tip-off that personal websites or blogs were used as sources; when quality sourcing is used, most editors are pleased to have that show. Here's what WP:SPS says:
      • Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
    • In the case of a planet, it's doubtful this information can't be found in a reliable source, and there should be no need to rely on personal websites. See the sourcing at Io (moon) as an example. Further, you haven't answered my question about who these people are even if we are to consider them published experts in the field. A major planet article can be sourced to scientific journals. By the way, thank you for not cluttering this discussion with graphics; I find it much easier to read and respond, and it will be easier to strike my concerns when they're addressed, which is the goal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are the references now? I have improved them a lot. Do they still need improvement? Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see some progress, but there are still missing publishers on many sources (example from the first ten sources only is Jupiter compared to Saturn. Retrieved on July 15, 2007), and you're still citing to personal webpages (examples in the first ten sources only are Bernd Onasch and the Yahoo Geocites website). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How are the references now? I have improved them a lot. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 11:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is still uncited text throughout.
  • Most, if not all, of it can be easily verified by any of the two books given separately in the "References" section or by the links in the "External Links" section. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How about citing specific pages of those books inline to make it easier for people checking out the books to verify your statements (should they want to).--Rmky87 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:SOURCE says the following: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (Bold emphasis already there). In other words, not every single statement in an article needs a direct citation but can be verified by general reference sources. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but. Hard data almost always requires a citation, and science articles are usually cited to scientific sources. Please review Io (moon) as an example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In addition, the MoS states not to repeat refs unnecessarily throughout a paragraph or section. So, the several references that you see throughout a section cover not only the sentence that they come after but also sentences and sometimes paragraphs before them. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tony 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Well done, but I see little glitches at random, such as:[reply]
  • No imperial equivalent for at least one unit instance.
    • Done Imperial units provided. Please tell me if I accidentally skipped some. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upper-case letter after colon in a caption.
    • Done Upper-case letter removed. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you use "that is", or something like it, instead of double parnetheses? "(120,536 kilometres (74,897.6 mi) vs. 108,728 kilometres (67,560.4 mi))". Read MOS on equivalent precision in conversions of units/values: you round up the decimal place?
    • Done Em-dash used instead of first parantheses, and rounding limited to that particular pair of numbers to decimal point instead of one decimal place; other numbers are rounded as their original counterparts. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 14:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: read MOS on spacing around common mathematical symbols such as > and ×.
  • "Saturn's winds are among the Solar System's fastest." Better: "fastest in the ...".

So I think it needs a quick but close run-through by an unfamiliar copy-editor.

Now, having been nice, I'm going to be critical of the mess you've made this page: strike-throughs, gaudy colours and ... your HUGE signature, which I find objectionable and obstructive. How about toning it down? Tony 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small note: if Universe=Atom would remove the 120% font size from his sig, and not chop up reviewers' comments with done checkmarks, the FAC would be much more readable, it would be easier for reviewers to strike comments when they're done, and easier for Raul to determine when the article can be promoted. Just an idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the mess. I will try to be more careful next time. I have started crossing out "done" comments instead of the green checkmarks. I have toned down my signature. I hope that it is better. (BTW, it was already toned down before from even another much larger one: as seen here.) Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better; thank you so much :-) Tony is satisfied on the prose; if you're able to replace some of the sources, I'll strike my Object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC) PS, Universe, take care not to strike someone else's comments. It would be most helpful if you would just indicate at the end (so as not to chop up comments) that you've addressed those items. Reviewers should strike their own comments; when you chop up their comments, it's harder to strike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. to Tony: Before you had written your comment, I had not struck out anyone's comments. The strike-outs that you saw before writing your comment were performed by the users whose comments they were. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support another great Solar System article. igordebraga ≠ 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.