# Talk:Metis (moon)

Looks like the adj. form should be Metidian, but needs confirmation. kwami 2005 June 29 23:53 (UTC)

Bosnian wikipedia just added it as Metida. kwami 05:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Great work on all these Jupiter moons.  There are so many but the authors have done a great job keeping up with the latest details.  Thank you!  Just one question.  Many of the satellite pages indicate Mean Radius or Average Distance when indicating orbital parameters.  The Mean Radius or Average Distance is different from an orbit's Semi-Major Axis.  What is the intent?  Thanks.  Tesseract501 01 June 2006.
I don't know the intent (may be for simplicity for laymen?) but mean radius is used more often than semi-major axis. I usually consider them equivalent. In fact, mean radius lacks clear definition. For instance if you consider mean potential energy it is proportional to 1/a. So in some sense semi-major asis is a mean radius. Ruslik 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The mean radius is what is usually given for inner moons of the giant planets because their osculating semi-major axes change in complicated ways on short timescales (days, months) due to the perturbations of all the other much larger satellites around the place. The advantage of giving a mean radius is that it is a value for the size of the orbit that can be both precise and accurate without the need to specify an exact date. Deuar 23:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Metis (moon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I will be reviewing your aricle Metis (moon) for GA. It seems like a very good article. Initially, I have a couple of comments. Please feel free to contact me. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All the references seem to be in a uniform format except for reference number 6. Could you put that one in a web xxx format as the others are?
per MOS:LINK#Overlinking and underlinking, duplicate linking is discouraged, especially of relatively common terms. I notice that you have Jupiter linked more than once and perhaps others. Could you check for this?
Although the image is a NASA image, it also has a copyright warning on it. Could you be sure that it is a free use image? Or justify its use, if it is fair use?
I may be adding other comments as I read through the article again.  —Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that in one place you do not have Galileo spacecraft italicized (in the lead), but under Discovery and observations you have it italicized as well as Galileo. I see that Galileo is italicized in the article on the spacecraft. If there is a particular convention regarding this, it should be consistent.
In Rings of Jupiter#Main_Ring, the text in that section does not capitalize "Main Ring". Should it be capitalized or should it be main ring, uncapitalized? In the first sentence under Relationship with Jupiter's rings, you do not capitalize it.
Phobos needs to be disambiguated.
It seems like Voyager 1 should be italicized at first mention for consistency, as discussed above. You have italicized it in the following mention.
"water ice"  - it seems like "water" is redundant since ice comes from water.
Since you say "Metis is tidally locked to Jupiter" in the lead, you should also discuss this in the article body; at least make clear where you are referring to this in the body. Perhaps explain how it relates to Tidal locking.
"Its long axis is aligned towards Jupiter, this being the lowest energy configuration." - It would be helpful to elaborate on this and other statements that may be obscure to the general reader.
I should have solved most of the issues except for:
image: I have no idea what to do about the image. please help
water ice is commonly used in astronomy since in astronomy, solidified methane or ammonia are also considered "ices".
tidal locking is discussed in the second paragraph of the orbit section
Nergaal (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image should be O.K. accoring to [1] which with I checked.  —Mattisse (Talk) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Anything else I need to do? Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
How about delinking ice since that article specifically says it refers to water? Otherwise, everything seems fine.  —Mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
All done Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Nice article! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the odd passive voice phrasing was not directly linked to use of the adjectival form, Metidian.  Still I will not replace Metidian. Its is good enough. User:Fartherred from 207.224.85.91 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

An alternative to Metidian is Metis' or Metis's.  Of two possible spellings, both are used in two instances in the article.  I will add another instance of Metis' making it the majority form and establish consistency for the article.  I hope this is not too fastidious. Fartherred (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The article states that "only 31% of Jupiter's surface is visible from Metis at any one time". As I worked through the math, I believe that this calculation is in error. I believe the error is because the spherical cap area was calculated using 2x the correct angle. Could someone double check that figure? There was no reference given. I was able to duplicate the viewing angle of 67.9°.blacksheep (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The angle shouldn't come into the equation at all; it's entirely based on how far away an object is from a sphere. The equation is 
  
    
      
        f
        =
        
          
            d
            
              2
              
                (
                
                  R
                  +
                  d
                
                )
              
            
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle f={\frac {d}{2\left(R+d\right)}}}
  
, which by my reckoning gives the correct value. However, with no references this becomes trivia/OR, so unless a source appears I'm going to simply remove the information (edit: this diff). I'll also ping WP:AST and WP:ASTRO for their input. Primefac (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Since you have deleted the numbers, my response is a bit academic. The formula you cite is correct if the d is the distance of eye from the surface. If d is the orbital radius, the correct formula is 
  
    
      
        f
        =
        
          
            
              d
              −
              R
            
            
              2
              d
            
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle f={\frac {d-R}{2d}}}
  
. I believe you used the correct formula with the wrong number for d. This gave you the original viewable area value of 32%, which I believe to be in error. I calculate 22%. Please see this web page as a reference for this calculation. It also includes a calculator for checking your computation. blacksheep (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I added a spoken word version of this article. Please let me know if I made any errors or mispronunciations. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFugeni (talk • contribs) 22:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)