Talk:Saturn/Archive 1

Gas planet

saturn is not a gas planet ive been looking throught me scope and if u look close enough u can see that it is a rocky planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.131.0.114 (talk • contribs)

Scientists have sent spaceships very close to Saturn. They have very good pictures of it, and they are sure that it is made of gas. --Mooshified 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How can something made of gas have so much gravity? There has to be solid ground beneath the atmosphere for it to attract so many moons. 70.118.115.49 21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Saturn does indeed have a rocky core. However, Scientists also use the color of Saturn to determine what the planet is made of. Different colors mean different things. For example, gaseous elements will have a certain color. They can also observe the movements over time of the features of the planet. Wind and water move on a planet but rock does not. Saturn has a small rock in the middle. However, it is made mostly of gas. Even gas can have gravity. Look at the Sun. The Sun is mostly made of Hydrogen gas (although its really plasma) and yet it has so much gravity even pluto feels it.Tourskin 03:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Sun is completely made up of gas, and it has the most gravity of all. Every object (including you and your computer) has gravity. Small objects, like the moon, have low gravity. Large objects, like Saturn, have high gravity. Loudclaw (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Blanking Giuliano Sovramora's Knots Theory Reference

I took the liberty of erasing this uncited reference, made by an anonymous user back on Aug 6, 2008. (I'm surprised that the assessment committee would allow this for almost a year in what was supposed to be a Very Good Article.) If anyone knows what sentence in the article this reference is citing (if any!), please feel free to re-insert it as an inline citation. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

38.109.28.125 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

and I think I'm wrong

Concerns over the article

I think the following concerns need to be addressed for this to remain VGA (note, this is a quick run-through):

• Letter of the law says no red links. There are a few here, and a template in use with many red links. There's no get-out clause for templates being used with red links so they all need to be addressed.

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• My script says six disambiguation links need to be sorted out (e.g. poles, axis, dust etc.) - one is the see also at the top so that's okay, but the others need to be sorted out. ( Done)

 Done I think they are all fixed now. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dead links indicated this. ( Done)

 Done all dead links repaired or replaced. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• MOS issues:
  • Mixture of date formats in the references, choose one and stick to it. ( Done)
  • Incomplete sentences (e.g. in image captions) don't take a full stop. ( Done)
  • en-dash should be used for page ranges, not hyphen (e.g. refs 18, 20...) ( Done)
• Ref 2 is a note and is hardly written in simple English. ( Done)

Ref 2 is a note which is OK, I have rewritten into simpler English (at least I understand it now!) --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Some refs incomplete, e.g. 23, 29 don't have publisher information. If possible, all refs should have title, url, publisher name, author name where appropriate, page range where appropriate, access date and publication date.
• Link planet the first time, not the second. ( Done)
• "yet as of 2009" it's now 2011, is this still the case? ( Done, removed a bit)
• "1.4 billion km" convert the km to miles for non-metric readers. ( Done)
• "water" is linked but "rotation" is not. Seems a little odd to me. ( Done)
• "much faster than the fastest winds recorded on Earth." proof? ( Done)
• "the more clearer spots" grammar. ( Done)
• "near its equator" re-iterate "near Saturn's equator" because the subject has changed a couple of times... ( Done)
• "Storms like the 1990 storm were" don't repeat storm -> "Storms like the one in 1990.." ( Done)
• "as the Great White Spot, " singular? surely "as Great White Spots"? ( Done)
• "every 10.8 Earth hours" v "every 30 earth years" earth or Earth? ( Done)
• Last para of "Atmosphere" is entirely unreferenced. ( Done by Peterdownunder)
• "two and a half " hyphenate this. ( Done)
• Some elements of data in the infobox are unreferenced - many have their own refs.
• "about 9 times is distance" -> "about nine times its distance". ( Done)
• "Rotation and orbit" section entirely unreferenced. Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• "The rings make Saturn one of the most interesting things to see in the night sky" come on, this is an encyclopedia, not a child's "exciting things to do" book. ( Done)
• Don't overlink telescope. ( Done, and Hubble Space Telescope too)
• "so he called them "ears"." actually, the ref says he called them "handles". ( Done)
• "inclined to the ecliptic" is this simple?

 Done - Removed, the main part of the quote is that he saw rings. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Cassini Division" needs an article. ( Done)
• "James Keeler studied the rings using a spectroscope in 1895 which proved Maxwell's theory to be correct." unreferenced. ( Done)
• "like a wave you would see in water" "you would see"? This is supposed to be written encyclopedically. ( Done)
• "Scientists believe that the wave is caused by its moons. [24] [25]" replace "its" with "Saturn" as the subject is unclear. And remove spaces before and between references, per MOS. ( Done)
• "Encke Division, both are visible from the Earth" Encke Division needs an article, and the "are" is unnecessary. ( Done, redirected)
• "Recently, from data received by the Cassini spacecraft, the rings have their own atmosphere," what? the rings have recently gained an atmosphere? Needs rewording, perhaps "Recent data from the ... has shown that the rings..." ( Done)
• Spokes section entirely unreferenced.  Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• "Saturn has at least 60 [29] moons," move the ref to after the comma. ( Done)
• Most of the Moons section is unreferenced.  Done ---Peterdownunder (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• 1000 times ->1,000 times. ( Done)

GA comments

• Ref 47 now has two periods

 Done that was a hard one to find!--Peterdownunder (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Check for {{citeweb}} on ref 28

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Use an {{ndash}} in the title on refs 19 and 21

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• All images need alternative text per en:MOS:IMAGES. Use |alt=.

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Saturn is about 1.4 billion km from the Sun. It takes 29.5 Earth years to orbit around the Sun 1. Dull prose, reword. 2. Use {{convert}} to give me an approximate distance in miles

 Done - reworded, better I think, I am not sure about the approx distance though. --Peterdownunder (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Since you have a URL in ref 42 an |accessdate

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Use {{cite encyclopedia}} for ref 23

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid over-linking of miles and kilometers, as well as Kelvin, Fahrenheit, and Centigrade. {{convert}} remove lk=on in the templates.

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 1 use {{ndash}} instead of what looks like an mdash

 Done - removed dash, not needed --Peterdownunder (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 27 rm the - Google Books

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Use consistent dating in ref 12

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 2 and 7 are more notes, but I'll fix this.

 Done Albacore (talk · changes) 22:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Those were all the formatting issues. I'll look at prose when these are completed. Albacore (talk · changes) 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Prose

Overall the prose is good, but a few comments:

• Saturn has 62 known moons orbiting the planet; fifty-three are officially named. fifty-three ->> 53

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• compounds, surrounded by a deep layer of metallic hydrogen, then a layer of liquid hydrogen better to link metallic hydrogen as one word since we have an article

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Saturn is the only planet in the Solar System delink Solar System, linked earlier in lead

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• This means if Saturn could be placed in a large pool of water, it would float on it. rm "on it".

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• The outer part of Saturn's atmosphere is made up of 96.7% hydrogen, 3% helium... delink helium, linked earlier in lead

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• banded pattern, similar to the cloud bands seen in Jupiter. again delink Jupiter

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Look for other terms that need delinking throughout the article.

Fixed lots, still looking ---Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done

• In 1990, the Hubble Space Telescope found an enormous white cloud near Saturn's equator. an enormous ->> a large

 Done "Very large" --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps link and create Great White Spot

Not yet, made into sub section though. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)  Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Cassini-Huygens probe later confirmed it in 2006. Cassini-Huygens ->> Cassini–Huygens, move the article as well.

 Done - thankyou Macdonald-ross

• Interestingly, the Cassini probe discovered a hurricane-like storm locked to the south pole that shows a very clear eyewall. Reword to remove "interestingly"; change very clear to distinct

 Done changed to "clearly showed an eyewall" --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Saturn's field is unique in that it is perfectly symmetrical, unlike any other known planet.

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Cassini-Huygens spacecraft discovered that the radio emissions slowed down, meaning the rotational period increased. It is unknown what caused the radio waves to slow down. for the second sentence, Cassini-Huygens ->> Cassini–Huygens

 Done Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• They are about 1 km (1 mi) thick; made of silica rock... Use {{convert}}, I'm positive 1 kilometer is not equal to 1 mile

You are right, but that is what the template is doing. Anyone know how to fix it?--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just found the latest info from the June 2011 Cosmos magazine which says the rings are only 10 metres thick! Just reading the rest of the article to see what else needs updating.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

More when these are completed. Albacore (talk · changes) 23:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• On my browser, the image directly under the "Spokes" subheader malfits the "Moons" subheader.

I will have a look at this in the next day or two. I would like to check that we do have the best pictures to support the whole article, before I shift or format anything.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• They appear to be seasonal, disappearing during solstice delink solstice

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• The probe was designed to float in case it landed in water. Unless I really missed something, the reference doesn't support the statement.

Yes you missed it - it is in bottom of the "Fast Fact" box near the picture of Christaan Huygens --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• On November 1980 On->> In

 Done - do not know how I missed that! --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cassini also proved, in July 2006, that Titan had hydrocarbon lakes Perhaps link lakes to Lakes of Titan.

 Done - thanks, did not know we had the article.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

When these are completed, I'd support the article as a good one. Albacore (talk · changes) 13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Source check

Okay, so a quick look at refs, for this version. The following need absolute justification for use here:

• Ref 2 - http://cseligman.com/text/sky/rotationvsday.htm (a personal website)

Removed

• Ref 4 - http://home.comcast.net/~kpheider/MeanPlane.gif

Replaced

• Ref 14 - http://www.universetoday.com/15319/size-of-saturn/

Replaced

• Ref 15 - http://starryskies.com/articles/dln/11-99/saturn.html

Replaced

• Ref 18 - http://www.solarviews.com/eng/vgrsat.htm

Replaced

• Ref 19 - http://www.worldrecordsacademy.org/weather/highest_surface_wind_speed_Tropical_Cyclone_Olivia_sets_world_record_101519.htm

Replaced

• Ref 22 and Ref 25 seem to be from the same source but are formatted differently.

Consistent

• Ref 27 - http://planet-facts.com/orbit-and-rotation-of-saturn/

Replaced

• Ref 28 - http://www.universetoday.com/8156/measuring-a-day-on-saturn/ (seems there's an original NASA release that could be used instead?)

Replaced

• Ref 41 - http://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/moons_and_rings.html

Replaced

General comment: a lot of NASA websites (or mirrors) are linked, but they are all formatted differently, they should be consistently presented.

Consistent

General comment: a number of websites/sources are the same but formatted differently, they need to be made consistent.

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we insist on verifiable and reliable sources, so I hope these can be resolved before someone nominates the article for GA or VGA.

I think these are all now verifiable and reliable --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Red links to fix

There are a couple of red links in the Solar System template which will need to be fixed if we are ever to get this article to VGA. At this point whether they need their own article, or whether a link might fix it is open to discussion.

• Vulcanoid asteroid
• Meteoroids
  • I've changed the link in the template to Meteoroid, a redirect. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Periodic comets

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Non-periodic comets

 Done and another one! --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Damocloid
• Hills cloud
  • enWP redirects Hills cloud to Oort cloud, removed Hills cloud from template. Albacore (talk · changes) 18:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Rings of Jupiter - article written.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Rings of Uranus - linked to relevant section in Uranus article.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Moons of Haumea - this one is now done --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Once these are done, I can not think of anything else that needs doing. VGA here we come! --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Solar System box

In my opinion, lower boxes should be set as normally collapsed, not on show as at present. They often intrude too much onto the page; and some pages have several boxes. I don't think we have discussed this before. If boxes are set as normally shut, then I think there would be no need for all their red links to be covered.

In any event, before putting up stubs for all their red links, we should cut out items which don't seem sufficiently important. Very often boxes from enWP need some pruning. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made some changes already, for example the comet links were to a list of comets, hundreds of them, which would never be created here (not in my lifetime anyway) so I have created an article style page instead. other links, the Moons of Haumea, might for the moment best be a link to an article on Haumea. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reset the box with collapsed as the default; it's what we often do to large boxes. We did it for the chemical periodical table, for example. I don't insist that my view prevails, but this gives others a chance to see it in action. Collapsed, it does not hinder PVGA, which I take it is our next step. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It is our next step, but in view of its troubled past, I would like this page perfect when it goes to PVGA. --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading scores

A test from this website [1] gave the following info: Flesch Reading Ease 63.72 and Flesch-Kincaid Grade 5.35. These are good scores for a scientific article.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

VGA- seeking perfection

To that end, my quick first-run through comments:

• You say "about 1,400,000,000" and then convert it to an uncomfortably precise "869,919,669" miles. Perhaps the conversion should be to maybe 869,000,000?
  • Fixed, converted to 869,000,000 mi's.

Only if you were looking oot the windie when the teacher was doing approximations!!

The appropriate approximation is 870,000,000. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Consider explaining what an "Earth hour" and an "Earth year" are. It's not common parlance, particularly for simple English readers.

Fixed, explained earth year, removed Earth hour --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• "core" is a dab link.
  • Linked now to planetary core
• in about 2020. [20] - remove space.
  • Fixed
• Consistency on minus signs please (compare infobox with main text).
  • Looked at this carefully, but do not understand problem. Example? --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Infobox "Apparent magnitude" appears to use a hyphen, main text temperatures, e.g. (−10 °F) appear to be using an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • All typed with the same key - I think the difference you are seeing is because the infobox is in a smaller font size.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        • It seems to be because the convert template changes - to −, so you put a hypen but it displays an en-dash. :) Cheers, Grunny (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
          • • It is the template, so I have replaced it with manual data so the problem here is fixed. However we need someone who know templates to have a look at it and fix it. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
              • It isn't actually an en-dash, but a unicode minus sign created by −, so I'd say the convert template might have it correct per this. It might be better to change the infobox negatives to a minus symbol rather than changing the convert template then? Grunny (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• "apart.[29]:60." fix period.
  • Fixed
• "up of 96.7% hydrogen, 3% helium, 0.2% methane and 0.02% ammonia." vs infobox. Inconsistency.
  • Fixed--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Infobox still says ~ (i.e. approx) while the prose says "made up of 96% hydrogen," i.e. exactly 96% etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I've added an "about" in the text, hope that fixes the issue. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• I thought hydroxide was an anion, not a compound?
  • True, it is. Fixed
• "Similar interactions cause the northern lights on Earth." ref please.
  • Fixed --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Reference notes.
  • i.e. provide references for the notes, most importantly the claim in note B. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Refs: NASA are publishers, not works, so they should be in plain text, not italics.
  • Fixed - --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Refs: Georgia Journal of Science, this is a work so it should be italics.
  • Fixed
• Refs: 35, why does title include "BBC NEWS;"?
  • Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rotation period

Changes to this section are based on my reading of the source. It is essential to distinguish between readings of radio waves, and the actual rotation of the planet for which the radio measurements are a proxy. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right and said it better than my first effort. You and I will be Saturn experts by the time this gets to VGA. If NASA wasn't shutting down I could have a new job. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref format issues

For VGA, the following should be fixed. These are just a few issues, once resolved I'll do a comprehensive review.

• Publishers are not in italics, so I don't understand why BBC News (for instance) is considered a "work" here?

The "story" is the title, BBC News would be the "work", published by the British Broadcasting Corporation.--Peterdownunder (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Link publishers/works the first time only, or always, not "sometimes".

Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid all capitals in titles etc, regardless of the website, reformat the text to meet our own MOS.

Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• For single page references, don't use pp., that means "pages".

Fixed --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• What makes solarviews.com a reliable source?

Removed, it didn't reference anything arguable. Albacore (talk · changes) 11:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• 13 digit ISBNs should be used where available.

Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Published works (e.g. "Gravity field and dynamics of the Earth") need publisher information, date of publication etc.

Fixing --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• What makes mira.org a reliable source?

It is used on ENWP Saturn article which FA status. MIRA is a research organization with library, telescope, address etc., that has been in existence since 1972. They come up as reference on other sites. I have found nothing on other sites or sources that contradicts any of the MIRA info used in this article. Supported by the American Astronomical Association.[2]

• Why isn't mira spelt out in the source?

Fixed--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be careful with publication dates, e.g., ref 51 currently has incorrect publication date.

Fixed--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Who published ref 48?

Ames Research Center, NASA. added to ref.--Peterdownunder (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also, should include the original publication date in ref 48 since it's been archived.

Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Who is the publisher of Astrobiology magazine?

Website says it is a NASA sponsored organization.--Peterdownunder (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Smithsonian is surely the publisher, not a work (so why in italics?).

Fixed --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Centre vs center

Just one little point that could use a change. I don't care whether the Commonwealth or American spelling is used, but we should be consistent within the article.

• "It has a small rocky core about the size of the Earth at its centre."

• "Orbital information is based on the barycenter of the Saturn system, the center of mass, not the geometric center."

Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Done. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

VGA maintenance

• Ref 46 - LLoyd, James (2011-04-21). "Footprint detected from one of Saturn's moons". cosmosmagazine.com. Retrieved 2011-04-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link) - should the name 'LLoyd' be 'Lloyd'? --DJDunsie (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed by someone. DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 18:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• In the section Exploration, Saturn was first explored by the Pioneer 11 spacecraft ON September 1979. I think it should be in. DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done - how did that one get through. --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 52 (the last one) needs a page number. DJDunsie ^(talk) 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ref replaced. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to make the ref using a citation template e.g. {{cite book}}? DJDunsie ^(talk) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the cite template does anything useful for books or journals. Perhaps here it would improve consistency to use the template (starred page &c). Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done for consistency. DJDunsie (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the Other websites section, NASA is written out in full - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Is this really necessary, or will NASA be sufficient? DJDunsie (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NASA is good; a linked term. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done DJDunsie (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• The description of the second picture in the Exploration section has the word impression in it, "An artist's impression of Cassini orbiting Saturn", which is complex . It needs to be simplified. How about, "A picture by an artist of Cassini orbiting Saturn". DJDunsie (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Captions need not be complete sentences. "Cassini orbiting Saturn: artist's impression" would do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant that impression is not a simple word. DJDunsie (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

How about 'idea'? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

'Picture'? Doesn't really matter, I guess. DJDunsie (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done, looks good, thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The sentence, "Saturn generates radio waves, but they are too weak to be detected from Earth.", (in the Magnetic field section) needs a reference. DJDunsie (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Text is a reasonable summary of the ref now added. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is one of the authors "*Smith, A.L" instead of "Smith, A.G"? (link) DJDunsie (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Should be changed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done DJDunsie (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

This is where you put suggestions for improving the Saturn article. Nowhere else. Other members of the community watch this page, and putting your ideas here lets them join in. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

2021/2022 comments

Here's the place to put more recent comments. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Saturn. I notice some wording which reads as being slightly naive. You don't say in science "some people think" or "some people believe" (that's what we call "hand-waving"). If you don't have a source to quote, it is possible to say "There are two explanations for the rings of Saturn" or "the rings may have formed..." If a source is quoted on such a subject, they must be qualified to have the opinion you quote. There may or may not be a standard text you can use throughout the article. Usually there are several, but it may be that an editor does not have easy access to it. In science, the journals are regularly taken by universities, but some public libraries do take the Nature journal(s). If it's science then you do need sources, and sometimes they will be difficult to get. You can use sources in English WP so long as the source is making the same point here. Otherwise it's tricky to use sources which you cannot yourself verify. It will often be OK to use the En sources for general verification, but if it comes to exact quotes you may need to eye-ball the original. I have found an increase in semi-popular books which do include sources (because they are going to get read by students). Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarify please...

Awkward, under "Atmosphere" is the categorical statement "The temperature here is quite low, at 250 K (-10°F, -23°C)." [OK, got it!] followed by "However scientists do not agree about this." [Oh!] Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)