Talk:Adrastea (moon)

Spoken Word Article

Hi everyone, I added a spoken word version of this article. Please let me know if I made any errors or mispronunciations. Thank you! TheFugeni (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)TheFugeni

Contradiction for origin of name

In the first paragraph Adrastea is said to be the foster mother of Zeus, but in section 'Discovery and Observations', it says it is the daughter of Zeus and his lover. The disambiguation page for Adrastea does include the two possibilities, but i'd imagine that foster mother (being the closest moon), would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNegrello (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Although the pronunciation a-dras'-tee-a is common in astronomical web sites, some agree with the Dictionary of Classical Mythology (JE Zimmerman, Harper & Row, 1964) and the Columbia Encyclopedia in having a'-dras-tee'-a. The difference depends on whether you look to the Latin or to the Greek: most names from the Greek classics have been filtered through Latin, and the accent has often shifted. Astronomical bodies that we've known of longer, such as the Galilean satellites, have a Latinate pronunciation, whereas there's often dispute with more recent names.

Since the Greek penult is heavy, the literary English (Latinate) pronunciation has penultimate stress. The Greek spelling is included for those of you who'd prefer that instead. --kwami 02:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit on 9th October

If my English serves me correctly, the article states that the spacecraft did not find anything smaller than Adrastea but can find Adrastea itself.

I'm reverting.

--58.152.147.161 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adrastea (moon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Writing issues

• "In 1983, it was officially named after the mythological Adrastea, one of the daughters of the Greek god Zeus—the equivalent of Roman god Jupiter." Replace with "one daughter"
• "Amalthea's density implies that that moon is composed of water ice with a porosity of 10-15%, and Adrastea may be similar." Find some way to say this without repeating words.
• "In any case, however, since it is not breaking up, it must still lie outside its rigid Roche limit." Start with "However".
• 'It is easy for the impact ejecta to be lost from the satellites into space because the satellites' surfaces lie fairly close to the edge of their Roche spheres due to their low density." Vague adjective, delete.
• "It appears that Adrastea is the most copious source of this ring material, as evidenced by the most dense ring (the Main Ring) being located at and within Adrastea's orbit." Densest.
• "While it appeared only as a dot, it was the first moon to be discovered by an interplanetary spacecraft." While implies that these things happened at the same time. Maybe use "Although" instead.
• "It is easy for the impact ejecta to be lost from the satellites into space because the satellites' surfaces lie fairly close to the edge of their Roche spheres due to their low density." Not clear enough what the second "their" is referring to. Maybe split this up into two sentences.
• Too much "appears" in the rings section.
• The second paragraph in the discovery section is a single sentence and it would more logically appear somewhere in the first paragraph.

"The Galileo spacecraft was able to determine the mooon's shape in 1998, but the images remain poor." Somehow it picked up a misspelling.

MoS issues

• Double link to Roche limit in the orbit section.
• Infobox has the date of discovery, but this is missing from the discovery section.
• The see also section shouldn't list previously-linked articles. No big loss to delete the whole section.
• Comparison to Phobos in the lead but not in the rest of the article.
• For an article this small a less detailed single paragraph lead might be better.
• "&" symbol in one of the source citations.
• Move the discovery image to the right so it doesn't mess with the section header. Also, put it in the discovery section where it belongs. If it won't fit there because of the infobox, it could also go in the rings section.

??? not sure what you mean Nergaal (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adrastée FDS 20630.png is in the physical characteristics section right now, which makes no sense. The image caption mentions the rings and the discovery of the moon, so logically it should go in one of those sections. Also, it is anchored right after the end of a paragraph, so the orbit section header flows around it. I don't see anything in the MoS about it, but I think section headers are supposed to be left aligned. Since there isn't something in the GA criteria about this, if you really think it looks better this way, leave it be. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Several references to Amalthea but no links to it in the prose sections.
• Don't link adjacent words to different things, for example "Greek nymph Adrastea".

There are still some cases of this. For example, I really don't think you need to link both nymph and Adrasteia. If someone wants to find out what a nymph is, they can look at the article on Adrasteia. However, the part of the MoS that talks about this is not part of the GA criteria. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dashes between ranges of numbers should be replaced by "–", for example "10-15%".

Verifiability

• Inconsistent last name first/first name first in source citations.

now? Nergaal (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Assuming that its mean density is like that of Amalthea", this part of the physical characteristics section looks like original research. The assumption needs to be cited and the assumer named in the article, or it should be removed.

not sure about this. the two bodies are thought to be similar. nobody knows the mass, but assuming same density, and using density=mass/volume you get that mass. why is a ref necessary there? Nergaal (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The ref is needed for the assumption that the compositions of the moons are similar. See WP:SCG#Attribution. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not happy about the wording, but the citation will do. Wronkiew (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• "It orbits Jupiter at a radius of ~129,000 km (1.806 Jupiter radii) at the exterior edge of the planet's Main Ring." This needs its own citation.
• The IAU circulars need authors.
• The URL for "Discovery of a New Jupiter Satellite" is broken.

Image caption issues

• "Image of Adrastea taken by Galileo's solid-state imaging system between November 1996 and June 1997." Find a more straightforward way to say that Galileo took the photo with a digital camera. If the exact terminology is important, explain it in the discovery section.

"Image of Adrastea taken by Galileo's between November 1996 and June 1997." Shouldn't be possessive. Also, not a full sentence, so no full stop. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

• The image in the infobox claims to be from NASA but does not provide a URL or a reference to a NASA document.

I am truly confused about this. It is an image on commons, and I have no idea what's happening there. The image was taken by Galileo, and is therefore NASA's. Nergaal (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the URL. Wronkiew (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has some issues so I'm going to place the review on hold until they can be fixed. Wronkiew (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Article passes the GA review. Wronkiew (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Names of the discoverers

Isn't it usual to spell out full names of the people who discovered the moon? I'm sure there is more to "G." in "G. Edward Danielson" than meets the eye. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adrastea (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725035158/http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/03400/03454.html to http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/03400/03454.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)