Talk:Ganymede (moon)

message: Looking at this article for WP:URFA/2020 and also for a potential TFA on 2020-12-21:
* The article had three different date styles (mdy, dmy and ISO): I picked what I thought the most common and ran the script.  But since Jupiter and Saturn use dmy, I wonder if the dates here should be the same.
* There are considerable duplicate links.  See WP:OVERLINK, but some may be deemed necessary and retained (editor discretion).  Installing this script will add an item to your toolbox that shows duplicate links in red: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt 
* There are MOS:SANDWICH and image layout problems everywhere.  If knowledgeable editors will delete those that are least useful (decorative), I am willing to go through and improve the layout.  There are considerable images here that are not aiding our understanding of the topic; by reducing those, we can get a better layout on the ones that stay. 
* External links probably could benefit from a trim, per WP:ELNO.  FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, meaning there should be little in EL that can't be covered in the article.  Do these add something to the article that we can't cover in a comprehensive article?
* The article appears to be well cited, but should be reviewed for uncited or outdated text.
SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may be so bold, I'll check off ones I've tried to take care of as I find the time, here and on the other talk pages mentioned at the linked discussions - Astrophobe (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Formatting probably still needs work and the page feels a bit cramped to me, but there are no more MOS:SANDWICH issues. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: The lede for this article should be edited down, and many of the details therein should be moved to the main body of the article, or removed completely.  The lede should be a para or two, at most.  Why even have sections if we're going to put all the details at the very top? 73.6.96.168 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:LEDE it can be up to 4 paragraphs long. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede is far too long. 

message: The current infobox image of Ganymede has been bothering me for a pretty long time now. Ganymede appears visibly squashed in the image as a result of reprojecting JunoCam's large field of view to a smaller one. Nowhere in the article is this effect mentioned, which means that this image can be misleading to readers. I propose that it should be replaced with a better-quality image like :File:Ganymede JunoGill 2217.jpg, although I'm not sure how to deal with that image's watermark. :File:Juno Sails by Ganymede.jpg could also be another option, though I prefer the previous image since I believe the less-saturated version is closer to Ganymede's "true color". Notifying active editors , , , and . Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 06:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of those would be fine with me. I'm used to the more saturated appearance, but if Ganymede is greyer than that, agreed it would be better to show that in the lead img. My issue with most of these photos is the way they're clipped. IMO, best to center the moon in the image, rather than just the sunlit portion. so that one has a better idea of how much of the surface is shown. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, something like Triton. Agree with kwami re colour. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need better image 

message: moon is a work of art😍 154.97.20.12 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  moon