This peer review discussion has been closed.
I stumbled across this article during my wanderings and decided to clean it up. It was already a very decent article, and I think it may be suitable for GA, or better. I know the lead needs to be expanded, but I'm terrible at such things, so beyond this review, if someone would like to take a stab at it, it would be welcome. Thanks in advance, — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Yohhans talk. My comments are made with GAN in mind. I've also taken the liberty of correcting minor mistakes and grammar errors. Hope you don't mind! :)
- General
- Links all check out with the link checker tool.
- Great images.
- Make sure to be consistent in your English spellings. That is, do not interchange British and American spellings of things. The example that immediately popped out at me was in the lead. Both "kilometer" and "kilometre" are used.
- I've attempted to convert to British English as best I can (given I'm using a British dictionary in Firefox), since that is more internationally acceptable. I have not changed the spelling of "sulfur" to the British "sulphur", as the international community has adopted the former (as mentioned here: Sulfur#Spelling and etymology). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might get dinged at GAN for not linking full dates (e.g. Prior to the Voyager 1 encounter with Io on March 5, 1979,).
- If this does happen, I'll kindly point them at the MoS, which states that linking for autoformatting (which I'm frankly in favour of) is now deprecated and not encouraged. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had noticed that as well, which is why I did not suggest you fix it. :) - Yohhans talk 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of terms are used that the lay person may not know. These must either be replaced with more common terms, or linked and explained (this is preferable). Examples include "orbital eccentricity", "tidal dissipation within Io", and the oft-used "patera(e)"
- Try to avoid the use of modal verbs (would, could, should, etc.). For example, "This color pattern would match flows radiating" → "This color pattern corresponds to flows radiating". Eliminating the use of modal verbs tends to make the sentence flow better. I don't know why, but it does.
- Prose
- Volcanism on Io produces lava flows, volcanic pits, and plumes of sulfur and sulfur dioxide hundreds of kilometers in height on this satellite of Jupiter. - Might be better worded as, "Volcanism on Io, a moon of Jupiter, produces lava flows, volcanic pits, and plumes of sulfur and sulfur dioxide hundreds of kilometers high."
- I've used your suggestion, thanks. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the most volcanically active worlds - Io is not a world.
- "World" is very commonly used to describe a variety of celestial bodies, including moons, asteroids, etc. World also mentions this. Frankly, I can't think of a better term for this phrase, and I'd prefer to avoid "object" here. I think readers will readily understand that this is used in a generic fashion, especially since it is plural and used in conjunction with "solar system". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, well the votes are against me then. In any case, I'd say Io and Callisto are closer to planets (I think of "planet" when I read the word "world") than Pluto ever was, so I guess this really should not bother me. - Yohhans talk 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the solar system, with hundreds of volcanic - I've always felt that "with" is a poor linking word. I would suggest rewording to "The tidal heating produced by Io's forced orbital eccentricity has led to the formation of hundreds of volcanic centers and extensive lava flows making the moon one of the most volcanically active bodies in the solar system."
- tens or even hundreds of kilometers (miles) long - As you are not providing a specific number, I would drop the "(miles)" since hundreds of kilometers generally translates into hundreds of miles.
- Done. I was kind of iffy about leaving this in during my previous sweep, as I had seen it in use elsewhere. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- umbrella-shaped plumes; painting the surrounding terrain in red, black, and white; and providing → umbrella-shaped plumes. The material paints the surrounding terrain red, black, and white and provides
- thought to be a dead world much - Again, Io is not a world.
- Not done, per above. I really don't see this as an issue, since it is a commonly used phrase. :/ — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The latest theories suggested that Io would be a world covered in evaporites due to the discovery of a cloud of sodium surrounding Io. → The discovery of a cloud of sodium surrounding Io led to the formation of theories that the moon would be covered in evaporites.
- Try to link uncommon terms that you use, e.g. thermal inertia.
- Why are the light wavelengths presented in micrometers? All the science literature I have seen has presented them in nanometers. Further, I am not sure conversion here (or in the reset of the article) is necessary. Yes, the US still uses Imperial units for every day things, but SI units are ubiquitous when it comes to science. And if your GA reviewer gives you a tough time for not providing a conversion, I'll vouch for you. :) Also, it's always a good idea to link the unit of measurement. So, "taken at a wavelength of 10,000 nm," instead of "taken at a wavelength of 10 micrometres (0.00039 in),".
- My guess would be that the source used micrometers, and indeed, the title of one of the sources mentioned "5 micrometers". I have therefore left these as micrometres. I agree, however, that conversion isn't necessary; these have been removed and the first instance expanded and linked. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- which suggested that Io had similar surface properties to the other Galilean satellites. - But you just said in the previous sentence that "heat flux was attributed to the surface having a much higher thermal inertia than Europa and Ganymede." Don't these two statements contradict each other? Or am I missing something here?
- This is saying that the 20 micrometer measurements indicated similarity to other Galilean moons, whereas the 10 micrometer measurements showed a marked difference to Europa and Ganymede. I've attempted to reword this to make better sense. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and a differentiated interior. - Would be helpful to have a link to something explaining "differentiated interior".
- I've tried to clarify this.... I really want to specifically say "with distinct layers of material rather than a homogeneous blend", but without the source, I cannot know their exact prediction, so I'm going with "with distinct rock types rather than a homogeneous blend". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- lack of impact craters; Impact craters are; impact craters and thus; impact craters could be found; impact structures, Voyager 1; characteristic of impact craters; ...... Yeah. All in one paragraph. Try and avoid redundancies like this.
- On March 8, 1979, shortly after the encounter, Voyager 1 took several images of Jupiter's satellites for optical navigation, to determine the position of the spacecraft by comparing the position of the satellites to background stars. - This needs to be reworded. I had to read it three times before I knew what was being said.
- Heh, yeah. I've greatly simplified this sentence. All the gory details aren't necessary...after all, this is about Io's volcanism, not optical navigation. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- cloud along the limb of Io. - The limb? Eh? Last I checked, Io was spherical.
- "Limb" is the term used to describe the edge of a celestial body's sphere. See limb. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once the possibility of a solid body in the background - You just said that she knew it was a 300km cloud... I think something needs to be reworded.
- I've completely shuffled this around so it makes more sense. Cloud changed to "object" to allow for the proper explanation/"reveal" to follow. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Volcanopele provided good rewording for it. See below. As it reads now, it's kind of clunky. Too much starting and stopping. - Yohhans talk 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Following this discovery, other plumes were discovered in earlier Voyager images of Io, as well as thermal emission, indicative of cooling lava, from several sources. - The second clause is missing a verb. Right now it reads awkwardly. Maybe change it to, "Following this discovery, other plumes, as well as thermal emission, were discovered in earlier Voyager images of Io."? Only problem with that though, is you lose the information about it indicating the existence of lava.
- I've split this into two sentence and reworded the second part. Should work better now. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The friction produced in Io's interior due to the varying tidal pull from Jupiter between the periapsis and apoapsis points in Io's orbit is enough to cause significant tidal heating within Io's interior and creating a significant amount of melt. - Long rambling sentence. Needs to be broken up.
- Fixed to show proper grammar...must have missed this one in my previous sweep. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- a significant amount of melt. - I assume this should be melting?
- Their coloration was found to be similar to various allotropes of sulfur, differences in the color and brightness of polyatomic sulfur as a function of temperature, and the packing and bonding of the sulfur atoms. - This sentence is confusing. Is it saying, "Their coloration was found to be similar to various allotropes of sulfur. This allotropy is the cause for differences in color and brightness of polyatomic sulfur."?
- Erm, at first glance I had thought this was saying the colouration was a factor of all three parts, but upon review, that's just not possible. I've rewritten this material to better state what I'm fairly certain it should be saying, that the differences in colour and brightness is a function of polyatomic sulfur temperature, and the packing and bonding of sulfur atoms. One thing I'm not 100% about, however, is whether "function of polyatomic sulfur temperature" and "packing and bonding of sulfur atoms" should switch places...I'm reasoning that colour may be result of the atomic arrangement, and brightness a result of temperature...but I'll leave as-is unless someone more intimately knowledgeable can chime in. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Well, I suppose we'll let Volcanopele deal with the strict wording of this then. But, regarding what you have now... using "with" as a linking word is probably not a good idea because it makes the sentence feel more passive and less declarative. Also, I think you're missing a verb here: ... colour and brightness a function of the temperature ... - Yohhans talk 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- by Voyager 1's IRIS - Is IRIS an acronym for something? If it is, it should be spelled out entirely.
- While temperatures consistent with silicate volcanism were not detected by Voyager for this reason, Io's high density and the need for silicates to support the steep slopes observed along patera walls by Voyager suggested that silicates did play a role in Io's youthful appearance. - Long rambling sentence. Needs to be broken up.
- Somewhat fixed...still a bit long, but this is about as clear as I can make it. Better than it was, however. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about, "However, the IRIS instrument was not capable of detecting wavelengths that are indicative of higher temperature components. This meant that temperatures consistent with silicate volcanism were not discovered by Voyager. Despite this failing, it was determined that silicates did play a role in Io's youthful appearance as suggested by the moon's high density and the need for silicates to support the steep slopes along patera walls."? - Yohhans talk 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Referencing
- However, the authors considered that hypothesis unlikely, and instead focused on emission from Io's interaction with Jupiter's magnetosphere. - Needs to be cited.
- While I don't have these sources, the wording strongly implies that this was part of the preceding citation, which is backed by cite formatting elsewhere. I've moved the cite to the end of the paragraph. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed that was the case, but as I did not have access to the sources, I figured I'd mention it anyway. - Yohhans talk 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume the entire second paragraph can be cited to the paper Peale, et al. published. This should be done since the second half of the paragraph is uncited.
- When Voyager 1's first images of Io came back in early March 1979, an obvious lack of impact craters was noted.[7] Impact craters are used by geologists to estimate the age of a planetary surface. While Callisto, another Galilean satellite, was found to be saturated with impact craters and thus has an ancient surface, no obvious impact craters could be found on Io in Voyager's images, suggesting a very young surface. - The third sentence basically restates what the first two sentences say. Except it says it a little better, but without references. In fact, the rest of the paragraph is unreferenced. This needs to be fixed.
- Earth-based infrared studies and Galileo spacecraft observations in the 1980s and 1990s shifted the paradigm from one of primarily sulfur volcanism to one where silicate volcanism dominated, with sulfur acting in a secondary role. - Reference?
Half way through. Will finish later tonight. The article has a fantastic amount of information in it. I think with a proper copyedit, a little more referencing, and more attention to the MoS, this could easily make it through FAC. It's been a great read so far! - Yohhans talk 22:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that first sentence as a mini-lead for the rest of the paragraph. I don't see that it says anything that the rest of the (cited) paragraph doesn't.
- Also, forgive me if my comments above echo things that are said below...I'm just going point-by-point and replying. If you feel so inclined Yohhans, please strike out those points you feel are resolved. And thanks for this detailed review! If you are interested in Bigelow Aerospace-related stuff, I'm in the process of rewriting those articles too...could stand a looksee at some point *grin* — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of striking things I have instead just pointed out where they have already been addressed below. This was done mostly because, while the points have been addressed, they have not been integrated into the article. Also, you're welcome for the review. Glad I could help! Also, don't miss the rest of the review below. ;-) - Yohhans talk 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I would run with many of the copyedits you suggest, but I do have a few comments:
- The word "World" is used here to encompass both planets and planet-sized moons. Without another appropriate word, world make the most sense and fits with the current common usage.
- I disagree that it should be used. I would much prefer to see something like "celestial body" used. I assume that world, to most casual Wikipedia readers, refers strictly to planets. - Yohhans talk
- Micrometers should be replaced with microns, the common unit of measure for wavelengths of light between 1,000 nm and 100,000 nm, used for infrared spectroscopy anyway. It is the unit of measure used in near-IR and thermal IR spectroscopy studies of Io. You are correct, no conversion is needed.
- Ok. I was not sure about things larger than 1,000 nanometers, and all the IR I have done has been displayed in cm-1. Microns is a good substitute. - Yohhans talk
- If the source for these figures use micrometers, I'd suggest we stick with that; if microns, then change it. It is a small thing, but I don't feel comfortable using one term when the original paper authors used another. But that's just me...go ahead and change if you feel so inclined. :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The term Patera is defined in the article and is a term used for the volcanic pits on Io.
- Yes, it is defined, but not until later in the article. The word however, is used multiple times before you define it. - Yohhans talk
- which suggested that Io had similar surface properties to the other Galilean satellites - this refers to the 20 micron study back in the 1970s. This IS contradictory to the conclusions made by the authors of the 10 micron study. This is part of the thesis of that paragraph that evidence to Io's volcanic nature was found in the 1970s, prior to Voyager flybys, but scientists then did not recognize that they had evidence for that, and instead suggested other hypotheses, like that Io had a much higher thermal inertia.
- If that is the case, then I would word it as such. For example, "Hints of discoveries to come arose from infrared observations taken in the 1970s. Measurements taken at 10 microns led to the finding of anomalously high thermal flux during an eclipse compared to the other Galilean satellites. At the time, this heat flux was attributed to the surface having a much higher thermal inertia than Europa and Ganymede. These results were considerably different from measurements taken at wavelengths of 20 microns which suggested that Io had similar surface properties to the other Galilean satellites." - Yohhans talk
- Fixed the redundant use of "crater" in the third paragraph of the Discovery section.
- "This needs to be reworded. I had to read it three times before I knew what was being said." - How about "On March 8, 1979, several days after the Voyager 1 encounter, the spacecraft acquired several images of Jupiter's satellites, including Io. By comparing the position of the moons to the location of background stars in the images, spacecraft navigators could determine the position of Voyager 1."
- limb is used to define the visible edge of a planetary body. Link to Limb here?
- Ah. I understand now. Yes, link to limb.
- How about "At first, she suspected the cloud to be a moon behind Io, but no suitably sized body would have been in that location. The feature was determined to be..."
- Ok, I see what you mean. Yes, that's a lot clearer. - Yohhans talk
- How about "Following this discovery, other plumes and thermal emission, indicative of cooling lava, from several volcanic centers were discovered in Voyager 1 data from earlier in the encounter."
- Good, except I just noticed something else. "discover" is used twice in the sentence. Anyway to reduce redundancy? - Yohhans talk
- IRIS - Infrared Radiometer, Interferometer, and Spectrometer
- Ok. I'm torn on how to do this. Including that in the prose makes the sentence very clunky, but the information probably should be included. I'll leave it up to you. - Yohhans talk
- The last sentence you reference can be broken up, will look into it tonight.
- Yes, the entire second paragraph is based on the Peale et al. paper.
- Just as the second paragraph was based on Peale et al., the third paragraph is based on the the Smith et al. paper.
- Ok. I've moved both references to the appropriate locations. - Yohhans talk
- Carr et al. 1986, I think, or Spencer et al. 1995 perhaps...
- It has been a while since I started this article, and I think you all for taking another look at it to make it better. --Volcanopele (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think you have done great work with it. It is amazingly informative. It just needs some touching up before it gets submitted to GAN. Actually, I think you could probably take it straight to FAC if you wanted. In my opinion, it fully meets all of the criteria except for some nitpicky manual of style issues (I've only seen two things regarding this so far, but then again, I am certainly no MoS afficianado.) and prose things. - Yohhans talk 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments starting at the second paragraph of Composition. - Yohhans talk
- Prose
- were also observed at Surt in - What is Surt? Or rather, where? Is it a place on Io, or a laboratory on Earth?
- dominated by lower temperature components. - Can the "components" be dropped so it's just, "dominated by lower temperatures."? It would make the sentence easier to understand I think.
- Silicate volcanism, involving basaltic lava with mafic to ultramafic (magnesium-rich) compositions, was confirmed by the Galileo spacecraft in the 1990s and 2000s from temperature measurements of Io's numerous hot spots, or locations where thermal emission was detected, and from spectral measurements of Io's dark material. - I think "or locations where thermal emission was detected," can be omitted here.
- Spectral observations of Io's dark material, often seen in fresh lava flows or in pyroclastic deposits surrounding recent, explosive volcanic eruptions, suggested the presence of orthopyroxenes, such as enstatite, magnesium-rich silicate minerals common in mafic and ultramafic materials. - Kind of a long, tough sentence to get through. How about, "The spectral observations were of Io's dark material, which is often seen in fresh lava flows or in pyroclastic deposits surrounding recent, explosive volcanic eruptions. The data suggested the presence of orthopyroxenes, such as enstatite, magnesium-rich silicate minerals common in mafic and ultramafic materials."?
- While temperature measurements of Io's volcanoes seem to have settled the sulfur vs. silicates debate - Did it settle the debate, or did it not? This (assuming it did settle the debate, which from what you've said, it did) should be reworded to, "While temperature measurements of Io's volcanoes have settled the sulfur vs. silicates debate ..."
- These, the larger of the two plume types, - What's the other plume type?
- are generated as sulfur and sulfur dioxide are exsolved from erupting magma. - From the sentence, I can infer what "exsolve" means, but, as I am no geologist, I still had to look the word up. Would it still be accurate if this was modified to "are generated as sulfur and sulfur dioxide are separated (exsolved) from erupting magma."?
- Also, several bright flows have been identified - Are these lava flows?
- volcanic depressions known as paterae.[21] Paterae generally have - paterae. Paterae ... Any way to cut down on redundancy? Nothing comes to mind, but maybe you can think of something?
- Whatever the formation mechanism, the morphology and distribution of many paterae suggest that these features are structurally controlled, with at least half bounded by faults or mountains. - Might be better reworded as, "Whatever the formation mechanism, the morphology and distribution of many paterae suggest that these features are controlled by surrounding structures, with at least half bounded by faults or mountains."
- Intra-patera eruptions can take the form - The previous paragraph was started this way.
- reveal glowing lava along the patera margin. - What is the "margin"? This is the first mention of this term.
- with that crust breaking up along the patera margins. - Previous sentence ended in "patera margin" as well.
- triggering an increase in thermal emission detected at the volcano. - I don't think "detected" is necessary here.
- emitters of heat in the near-infrared on Io. - Should this be, "emitters of heat in the near-infrared spectrum on Io."? Or is it common to leave out "spectrum" when referencing portions of the spectrum?
- These eruptions are often short-lived, lasting only a few weeks or months, - Wow. "Only" a few weeks or months? How long do the intra-patera eruptions last? Further, how does this compare to eruptions common on Earth? I was under the impression that volcanic eruptions lasted on the order of a few days or so (at max).
- Similar, rapidly emplaced lava flows - Can this be reduced to "rapidly moving lava flows"? Or is my vocabulary really just so poor that I don't know what this means? (After reading this article, I'm beginning to question how large my vocabulary actuall is)
- These temperatures (~1,500 K/1,230 °C/2,240 °F), suggestive of an ultramafic lava composition, similar to Pre-Cambrian komatiites, are dominant at such eruptions. → These temperatures (~1,500 K/1,230 °C/2,240 °F) are suggestive of an ultramafic lava composition and are similar to Pre-Cambrian komatiites.
- Another type of plume is produced when encroaching lava flows vaporize underlying sulfur dioxide, sending the sulfur dioxide skyward. This type of plume often forms bright circular deposits consisting of sulfur dioxide. These plumes are often.... - Another type of plume... This type of plume... These plumes... Can we be more inventive with how sentences are started?
- When you talk about plumes, to what are you referring? Are you talking about mantle plumes or plumes of smoke/soot/ash? If it is the latter, is this the term used by the scientific community? I would have thought that "emissions" would be more accurate.
- References
- Earth-based detections of these eruptions led to these being called "outburst" eruptions. - Citation needed
- That is all I have. A great read (although I may be biased as I love geology and astronomy)! As I said before, I think you could easily get this through GAN and probably FAC if the prose is touched up. - Yohhans talk 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Review by Ruslik. Some comments.
- 1) The lead is not satisfactory. It does not summarize the article: discovery and heat sources are not mentioned at all. The summary of other section is rather shallow (see WP:LEAD).
- 2) Please, use μm. It is not necessary to write microns or micrometers.
- 3) Conversions like "(20 micrometres/0.00079 inches)" look a bit ridiculous. Obviously inch is not a good unit for wavelenghts.
- 4) Some MOS issues: use ndash not hyphen in expressions like 0.6-1.6 (should be 0.6–1.6), the same is applicable for the page numbers. The use of ~ is generally frowned upon—use such words as "about, around". I also recommend using ((E-sp)) template instead of ((e)), because it inserts spaces.
- 5) Some terms should be wikilinked, for example, wavelength, crater, depression, fault etc.
- I hope my comments will be helpfull. Ruslik (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I will definitely try to figure out a new lead...this was the issue I most readily noticed going into this review. I've used μm for all but the first, where I've used the full word to establish just what the heck it is (I guarantee many folk, especially Americans, won't know, so an actual word to provide pronunciation may be useful). Those conversions have also been removed.
((E-sp)) applied, – installed, tilde removed. I'll also be sweeping through and looking for wikilink candidates later as well. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for this taking so long. But I have edited the article to comply with some of the requests made by the reviewers here. There are still two major issues that remain, and I hope to work on those issues over the next few days. The first is the lead which I have not changed, but needs to be expanded to match the length of the article. Secondly, I want to edit the Explosion-dominated section and expand the volcanic plumes section, maybe even move the latter up as it is clear that it would be useful if a discussion of Io's plumes comes earlier in the article. One thing that I felt didn't need fixing was for an earlier appearance of the definition of paterae. The word patera is used earlier in the article, but it is always as part of the name of a surface features, such as Loki Patera or Aten Patera. --Volcanopele (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I have gone ahead and expanded the Plumes and Explosion-dominated Eruptions sections in the article so hopefully these are a lot better. --Volcanopele (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the lead section to hopefully an appropriate length for this size of article (now ~40KB). I have also cleaned up some references and conversions I added yesterday now that I know a bit more about the Convert template. I think this resolves much of the issues expressed earlier, and I look forward to some of your critiques of the added material. One thing I know that needs to be addressed a little further is discussion of eruption styles in the lead section. I will try to think of a way to add that. Here are a few replies to some of the comments made above:
- "Plumes" is the general term used in nearly all papers describing them for the diffuse clouds of sulfur and sulfur dioxide above some of Io's volcanoes. This would be more approriate than emissions, which maybe more appropriate for some of the other gaseous features seen in eclipse images of Io.
- The issue of eruption length is now better addressed in the article. Many eruptions on Io have been ongoing at least since the late 1970s, some more or less at a steady state since the Voyager encounters (as far as available data can tell us). So, a few weeks is actually pretty short for an eruption on Io. Also keep in mind that outburst eruptions are often not steady state, with a quick ramp-up of activity over a period of a few days, vigorous activity for a few days more, then a slow decay in the lava eruption rate over a period of a few weeks to a few months.
- The patera margin is the where the floor of the patera intersects with the wall ;)
- I hope this and my earlier replies directly above this one address your concerns. --Volcanopele (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead:
- 1) I think the first two sentences should be exchanged. So it should be "Volcanism on Io, a moon of Jupiter, was discovered in 1979 by Voyager 1 imaging scientists. It produces lava flows, volcanic pits, and plumes of sulfur and sulfur dioxide hundreds of kilometres high." (discovery comes first).
- 2) "Io's volcanism has led to the formation of hundreds of volcanic centres and extensive lava formations, making the moon one of the most volcanically active worlds in the solar system."—a bit strange sentence. Taking into account that there only 4 active bodies in the Solar System it is reasonable to say that "Io's volcanism has led to the formation of hundreds of volcanic centres and extensive lava formations, making the moon the most volcanically active world in the solar system."
- 3) "Some exceptions may also exist, with several possible lava flows consisting of sulfur and sulfur dioxide also observed."—I suggest "However several possible lava flows consisting of sulfur and sulfur dioxide were observed."
- In the text:
- 4) 'Often' is used to often, in my opinion. 'Also' should also be removed whenever possible. My general impression is that further copyedit is requiered before the article can go to FAC (I copyedited the last section).
- 5) The classification of the eruptions is a bit contradictory, because both flow-dominated and explosive eruptions can be inside/outside paterae. So they respresent two independent classification schemes.
Ruslik (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for you comments and your copyedits. Regarding the lead, I don't think exchanging the sentences at the start is a good idea. According to WP:LEAD, the very first sentence should almost be a mini-lead section. By reading just the first sentence, the reader should have at least a basic idea of what will be discussed in the lead section and the article at large. As it stands, the reader would know, right off the bat, that Volcanism on Io occurs on a moon of Jupiter, and that it involves lava flows, volcanic pits, and gas/dust clouds. By discussing the discovery date first, the reader would only be aware of the time context. Important enough to be the second sentence, but doesn't state the obvious for the reader. The other two lead section suggestions are fine, but I think "also" is useful in (3), as it make it clear that while silicate flows are dominant, sulfur flows are seen in addition. Basically, it make it clearer that both are seen. I agree, "also" should not be used unless it is needed, and in that case, I think it is needed.
- WRT to the other comments, I known, often is used too often. Like long papers like this, I think it will just take a few read-throughs to see areas of improvement. It will get there. Again, thanks for you help going through it. As far as (5) goes, I am using the classification scheme developed by Io scientists. What might be very helpful is to have a few introductory sentences at the beginning of the section explaining in short the different styles and how they differ to the point that different classifications are needed and how they are defined from the data. --Volcanopele (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed the "often" issue. It is still used a few instances, but I removed the ones that I don't convey additional information. The instances that remain use often as intended, to convey that what is said happens in most cases, but not all. To delete "often" would remove this intention. --Volcanopele (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess this is still open to comment, even tho it's archived?
A seemingly minor point, but one I find annoying: false precision. The significant figures are all off. So, an average of 1 km (0.62 mi)? "1 km" is a gross approximation; it should be converted to "half a mile". I corrected to 1 sig. fig. (0.6 mi), but that's still overly precise. 1 m = 3.3 ft — no, just 3 ft, or better yet, 1 yd. And one of the numbers, an average of 41 km (25 mi), was obviously originally given in miles to the nearest 5 miles, converted to an overly precise 41 km (ten times the justified precision), and then back-converted. I corrected to 40 km.
Do we even want imperial units in this article? kwami (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments are certainly still open! Please mention anything you find...we hope to take this to FA. I'll go through myself and work on some of these figures. While it is open to debate whether Imperial units should be here, I think it still provides some value. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 41 km is actually the figure given in the source article, Radebaugh et al. 2001. In fact, the paper gives the 41.0 km as the average diameter of the paterae. --Volcanopele (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really! My bad, then. Unless maybe they were getting their info from NASA, and NASA was using imperial. That's the one use I see of imperial: when the source uses it, and you don't want to start introducing rounding errors through conversion. kwami (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, well, I guess in a way it was from NASA. Seriously, the source for that number is a paper by Radebaugh et al. 2001, "Paterae on Io: A new type of volcanic caldera?" The average is even in abstract, which you can read on the AGU website. They calculated that result from a database they developed of paterae on Io. --Volcanopele (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]