Volcanism on Io

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]


  • 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]
  • 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]
  • I've used your suggestion, thanks. Huntster (t@c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • "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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Fixed to show proper grammar...must have missed this one in my previous sweep. Huntster (t@c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See previous. Huntster (t@c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Already done. Huntster (t@c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already done. Huntster (t@c) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:
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

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]