User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Europa 2 Atom size 3 Europa 2 4 Ganymede 5 Triton 6 Yasui v. United States GA 7 To do 7.1 Concern over redudancy 8 Could you do me a favour? 9 Ready to go? 10 Ganymede (moon) question 11 GA Sweeps update 12 Your nebular hypothesis rewrite 13 Oh wow you're back 14 Formation and evolution of the Solar System 15 Oort cloud mass 16 Congratulations! 17 Atmosphere of Venus 18 Timeline

Europa

on Europa's FA page, RJHall has just raised an issue regarding the "once per 12,000 years" slippage data for Europa's crust. He wants to know, basically, what "once" means. I had a look at your source, but I can only read the abstract. Could you perhaps have a look? Thanks. Serendi^podous 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for resolving that, and for helping me with the Venus problem, I think you deserve a cookie:

Serendi^podous 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. congrats with Europa. Sorry I couldn't help out more but I was away for a few days. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! And thanks to you and RJHall for dealing with Tony1 while I was out of commission. I've been away from a terminal for a few days, and I'm likely to be away again for the next 24 hours or so. Do you think it still needs a copyedit? I'll get onto Ganymede after I finish Triton.Serendi^podous 16:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Atom size

I reverted your atom size correction because your number was exactly twice what you replaced. Please check whether your source is radius or diameter and go ahead and fix it if you had the right number. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Europa 2

Heya Ruslik. I see this one got featured without me. Kudos to you and Serendip, as always. I'm still willing to go over the prose. I've got two other articles on the radar for now, but if I forget to work on Europa remind me in a week. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede

Let's shoot for an FAC co-nom? It's greatly expanded in the last few weeks (with journal papers nicely increasing). You could better tell when it's on par with other Jovian moons. I see Serendip at work on Triton. With these two done, all the big seven moons would be FA. Only rocks will be left over to be made FA! (And Neptune.) Marskell (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I will get to a ce soon. I presume you noticed my own additions regarding orbital resonances. I think I described things properly. Ditto on the sodium (is it appropriate to say "nothing" or "scant quantities"?). Marskell (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And a question: Voyager found surface pressure of 2.5 ×10^-5 μBar versus 0.2–1.2 ×10^-5 μBar for HST. Isn't the former higher? How then is the latter indicative of an atmosphere? I'm truly a numbers dummy, so pardon me if that's a stupid question. They're within an order of magnitude (×10^-5), at least, aren't they? Marskell (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. On Tau Ceti, RJHall and I used a Notes section in part to have his own calculations in one place. This makes it easier for someone else to double check them. Is that worth doing here? Downside is that the ref/note system employed is clunky.

"Other evidence for the ocean includes surface features and minerals suggestive of water and slush having emerged from below." Not relevant? Marskell (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More questions! What is meant by "strongest central mass concentration" in the Solar System? The sentence needs to be tweaked for wordiness. Also, I thought I had added that while Ganymede's ocean is sandwiched between layers of ice, Europa's is in direct contact with hypdrothermal vents, lowering the probability of life on the former. Was that in there at some point?

I suppose you'll continue to fill out sections and I'll ce behind you, as the junior partner, so to speak. I'll tell you a minor concern, which I think I raised with Callisto: the "thickness" of the prose. Precisely because I approach these pages as a numbers deficient amateur, I worry about the general purpose reader being turned off by overwhelming detail. When it's more or less done, maybe we can go through it on talk with an eye for that? Marskell (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for the Science tip.

The comment on Europa's hydrothermal systems was in the Barr paper; I filled out the description somewhat. I've ce'ed Composition, Atmosphere, and Magnetosphere. This was small strokes, just eliminating wordiness. As I say, we'll save thick descriptions for last. Marskell (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I reinserted the "Subsurface ocean" headline. Is that a problem? I think it's a subject that may lead people to search the topic. Marskell (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Triton

I've done as much as I can, but I have no idea if what I have done is any good. This whole thing's been a bit above my head. Even so, there are still plenty of facts I can't cite. Even with all necessary citations, I don't see it reaching FA. Serendi^podous 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have access to that article. I'll see what I can do for Ganymede. Serendi^podous 11:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

International registration for that site asks for a lot of personal info I'm not all that keen to give up, my phone number in particular, so I think I'll pass. Thanks for the lead though. Serendi^podous 13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK; I got access to the Science website, and it was helpful to a certain extent. Unfortunately a lot of the information in the Triton article seems unciteable. I know why, and it's a problem I'm thinking of raising with the FA group. For some reason, articles which are featured on foreign language versions of Wikipedia are listed as possible help to users of the English language Wikipedia. Unfortunately, foreign language Wikipedias have lower standards for FA inclusion, and often don't cite their sources. That means that, when someone translates material from a foreign language Wiki, it ultimately saddles the article with highly specific material with no available sources in English. In this case, I know the guy who wrote the original foreign FA, his name's Pedro, so I've sent him a message asking him for his sources. I don't know if he'll get back to me. Serendi^podous 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yasui v. United States GA

I have expanded the lead, please let me know if that will suffice. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To do

Great Ruslik. (Sorry I'm going slow; I've been devoting time to Giant Otter and have three pending copyedit requests.) You'll notice I added a paragraph to surface features detailing heat sources. Hope it's OK. Marskell (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"The most probable values are: core radius—700–900 km, the thickness of the outer ice mantle—800–1000 km with the remainder being made by the silicate mantle." I simply can't make sense of this sentence. I think you tend to use an em dash where a colon, or simply a comma, would do. Marskell (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Concern over redudancy

Ruslik, I'm somewhat concerned over the logic of an Origins and evolution section. Not that it can't be useful, but doesn't it set-up a situation where information that should already have appeared in the main sections gets repeated? For example, the paragraph on tidal heating came back to a topic that I tried to elaborate under Surface features. I attempted a merge. This is fairly significant surgery on my part, so if you're not happy, feel free to change. I think the last paragraph in Origins, regarding impacts, should also be under Surface features. Marskell (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will try to give it a ce. I see that the joint editing may have created further redundancy (mostly my fault!) and I'll try to eliminate that. Marskell (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour?

I need to write a paragraph or two for Planet about what a planetary magnetic field is. I don't really have a clue, nor do I feel qualified to explain the differences between the magnetic fields of Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, and those of Mars and Venus. If you could provide a quick one-paragraph explanation I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Serendi^podous 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As always, thank you. Serendi^podous 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Get well soon, Ruslik! Marskell (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ready to go?

I notice you are not editing much, so I hope all is well with you.

I don't know if you checked back at the PR, but I suggested "moment of inertia," "magnetic moment," and "the low strength of the higher quadrupole harmonics" should have short descriptions to help the reader.

Beyond that, is it ready to go? I'm quite happy with it. You can have the honour of the nom, as most of the material is yours. (If you're tied up in real life, I can do it.) Marskell (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, popped up on my watchlist.

Small note "...and, possibly, ozone." Is this not sufficient to drop the "possibly"? Marskell (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede (moon) question

Hi, Ruslik; I'm running through my usual month-end archiving and stats chores, and I have a question on Ganymede. I noticed in the FAC that Marskell was a significant contributor (yep, I check them all :-) and therefore he didn't enter a Support, referring to "we" in the nomination. But, Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2008 doesn't have him listed as a co-nominator, since it wasn't explicitly stated on the nomination that he was a co-nominator. I didn't count his comment as a Support, as I assumed he was a co-nominator, but now I'm unclear. Should I add his name at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2008? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your nebular hypothesis rewrite

Are you still planning to merge your rewrite with the nebular hypothesis article? Serendi^podous 12:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow you're back

I'm sorry to burden you but I really need you. Neptune needs an atmosphere section and I don't have the necessary resources or knowledge to write one. Could you perhaps just write a paragraph or two giving a general layout of Neptune's troposphere and stratosphere? The exosphere is already mentioned in the Energy Generation section, and could be merged into an atmosphere section. Sorry again and thanks as always for your help. Serendi^podous 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we've managed to sort out most of the issues by reorganising the material already on the page. Still, I'm sure you could improve it, because you always do. Thanks. Serendi^podous 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; the guy who raised the objection hasn't responded yet. Still, I could probably use them anyway. Thanks :-) Serendi^podous 14:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Got the email; I'll be sure to have a look. Over at Talk:Neptune, RJHall has raised some issues with your changes, and I don't really know how to answer. Do you think you could pop over and help him out? Thanks. Serendi^podous 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

This is just to say that I put the "Galactic evolution" section back into the article. I know that it isn't entirely within the article's scope, but a number of recent editors have added unsourced material about the supposed effects that the galactic collision will have on the Solar System. I put that info back in to ensure we don't get any more such edits. I also expanded the section to make clear that, despite the misconception, the planets in the Solar System will not be affected by the merger. Just wanted to make sure you were OK with that. Serendi^podous 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just removed the paragraph about Iron-60 that you added to the pre-solar nebula section of this article because the same work was already mentioned in the first paragraph of the section. If you think it deserves the fuller description that you imported, re-add it (but the same ref should only have one footnote if cited multiple times). I did add an explicit mention of Iron-60 to the preexisting paragraph. ASHill (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rus, do you think you could go over to the Formation and evolution article and check out the Outstanding issues section? Some of that material might be better placed in Nebular hypothesis, and I was wondering what you thought. Serendi^podous 08:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that article helped a lot. Still need to do a lot of work though. Hope I'll have something by Friday afternoon. Serendi^podous 16:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I suppose I should ask, who came up with the SNDM and how did it become generally accepted? Serendi^podous 13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to find information on how we learned the Sun was going to die, but I haven't had much luck. Who was the first person to understand that stars die? What happened before Hoyle and Schwarzschild? I'm really at a loss. Serendi^podous 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rus. Do you think you could do a rewrite of that section? I'm sorry to have to burden you with this, but I've just damaged myself rather clumsily and am in a lot of pain. Most of this material is above my head anyway; nuclear physics was never my strong point. I've managed to get this far with the article, but I don't think I can do any more. And I feel like the whole thing is on a time clock. Serendi^podous 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it should be copyedited by someone impartial before nomination? Serendi^podous 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Screw it. Looks good to me. Let's just go with it. Tony1 will probably say "oppose", but then he always does, and yet, somehow I still have 15 featured articles to my name. Serendi^podous 05:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence was a bit grammatically fuzzy; I didn't quite understand what it meant. I've had a go at rewriting it, but even so I'm not sure about massive planetesimals bringing water to Earth because such impacts would have vaporised any water they may have had in them and also, the LHB would have destroyed any oceans the Earth would have had anyway. Serendi^podous 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK but what about the claim in the cited sources that the LHB would have removed Earth's water? Serendi^podous 08:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Frances Reddy, 2006. Serendi^podous 09:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then, the asteroid belt and late heavy bombardment sections needs to be rewritten and David Jewitt's discovery of the main belt comets has to be thrown out or explained some other way. Serendi^podous 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one do a timeline? Or do you think it's needed at all? Could the chronology be made clearer some other way? Serendi^podous 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oort cloud mass

Just to be clear; the figure of 3 Earth masses, is that for the outer Oort cloud or for the Oort cloud as a whole? Serendi^podous 21:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Nebular hypothesis to FA!

Serendi^podous 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto - I was preoccupied for a few days, got your note and.....noticed the star...good work :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on Formation and evolution of the Solar System at the moment, but I would welcome any improvements to the history article; it's pretty deficient at the moment. Serendi^podous 10:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. That article has been a millstone around my neck, and quite frankly I can't find the necessary information to complete it. If you think you can fix the holes in it, then that's great; I'd love to see it up to spec, but I've kinda given up on it as of now. I broke the article off and supplied it with just enough information to keep it from being deleted, but I don't think I have the will to continue with it. Though if you feel that you can make the article better, I will back you in your efforts. Serendi^podous 12:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded angry. Just venting a lot of frustration at that bloody article. Serendi^podous 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Venus

For some reason I thought the bot did it now, fixed - an FA and a GA in quick succession, excellent work Jimfbleak (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I don't think that kind of timeline would work, as the events covered aren't continuous; there are gaps of billions of years. Serendi^podous 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be listed for deletion. I suppose I could go cap in hand to the admins and ask what kind of template is encouraged for presenting information like this. Serendi^podous 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)