Talk:Impact events on Jupiter/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ComplexRational (talk · contribs) 21:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

GA criteria overview
I'll happily review this. I'll need about a day or two before I start writing substantial feedback (need to do a thorough read-through and attend to some RL obligations). ComplexRational (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thoughtful review! I will try to address all your comments in a few days. Artem.G (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. I still have more to add; go at your own pace. ComplexRational (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As I already marked, the article is already set for 2d (no copyvios), 5 (stable), and 6a (all images are free – from NASA).
 * I'll be leaving comments roughly following the article (top-to-bottom), and I'll do my best to denote which criteria my comments pertain to.
 * Earwig's copyvio detector did not find anything of concern, so 2d should not be a problem, though I want to check for close paraphrasing when checking sources to be 100% sure. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Criteria 1b and 4 are met pending some comments. Doing one more round for everything else soon; I plan to wrap up the review this weekend. ComplexRational (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall: < GA on hold pending the final round of comments. ComplexRational (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Passing now, as all the criteria are met following the last round of comments. ComplexRational (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * General
 * MOS:DATEUNIFY – implement a consistent date format. Not strictly required for GA, though I strongly encourage doing so if you intend to improve the article further, and it is loosely connected to having tidier prose (1a) and a consistently-formatted list of references (2a).
 * working on it
 * Eliminate first-person pronouns – they're not required here, so it's more encyclopedic not to use them: (1a)
 * done
 * Also, keeping Shoemaker-Levy 9 and its abbreviated form consistent would read better. From the comet's article, I suggest standardizing to "SL9" (so not "SL-9", "Comet SL9", or other variations), though feel free to choose any as long as it's consistent. (1a)
 * done
 * There are still a few instances of "Comet SL9" – you may have missed those. ComplexRational (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done
 * There are still a few instances of "Comet SL9" – you may have missed those. ComplexRational (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * – I feel this would read better as "Jupiter is the most massive planet in the Solar System and thus has a vast sphere of gravitational influence..." or similar (1a)
 * done
 * – can this be more concise? (1a)
 * done, but unsure about this
 * I mentioned this because "travel some revolutions" reads awkwardly. Perhaps something along the lines of "such comets enter unstable orbits around the planet that are highly elliptical and perturbable by solar gravity"? ComplexRational (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done
 * – understandable, though linking some technical terms would help a wider audience (1a)
 * linked Perturbation (astronomy) and Highly elliptical orbit (though this article is quite bad)
 * It should nonetheless suffice to clarify what highly elliptical orbits are for the wondering reader.
 * – what minor bodies exactly? I suggest adding a wikilink or more precise wording. (1a)
 * linked to Small Solar System body
 * – Jovian System or Solar System? (1a) Also, this part is not discussed in the body – only that of Jupiter being thought to attract asteroids/comets and more recent studies casting doubt on its exact role. (1b)
 * removed
 * – if this is meant to describe causation, I suggest shortening to "and thus reduce the number of objects" or similar; it feels garbled as currently written. (1a)
 * agree, you phrasing is better. done.
 * – these bits are not mentioned in the body and neither are comets from the Oort cloud; see also my comment above re . Additionally, I could ask "believed by whom?" since it is not stated or cited later on. Some of this information may be better developed in the section Jupiter as a "cosmic vacuum cleaner", with a concise one- or two-sentence summary in the lead. (1b)
 * added a bit into the 'cosmic vacuum' section


 * About Jupiter
 * I like the inclusion of a short introduction to Jupiter; it sets the context well.
 * – can you be more specific as to what these phenomena are? (1a)
 * I removed this, instead, "generate debris fields" is added, as more direct and uncontroversial statement
 * – I suggest adding a link to an article about the early Solar System.
 * linked to Formation and evolution of the Solar System
 * The third paragraph is a single run-on sentence with two semicolons. It would read much better as separate sentences. (1a)
 * done


 * Impacts by years
 * Maybe shorten the title to "Impact events"? (No strict criteria, just reads better IMO)
 * done
 * The table lists two impact events for 2021, but only one (Sep 2021) is described in prose. For completeness, the second (Oct 2021) should similarly be described in prose, and with its own sub-heading. (3a)
 * done
 * It seems that the list of impacts is intended to be exhaustive (ref 47 indeed clearly says that 2012 was the sixth, and I don't see any possible omissions). Perhaps note this clearly in the article to not leave readers wondering and not suggest a bias towards recent events. (1a, 3a, 4)
 * renamed the table to "Notable Jupiter impact events", so it wouldn't imply all the impacts and can be ajusted later
 * Can anything more detailed be written about the 1979 impact (captured by Voyager 1), as this seems to be the first well-documented one? (3a)
 * done
 * 1994 impacts
 * (SL9 in the table) – to keep consistency, could you add the exact UTC times for the first and last impacts to delimit the range?
 * done and referenced to JPL's table of all SL9 impacts
 * – can you be more specific, or at least point to the later section describing them? (1a)
 * – inline citation needed, though the abstract for ref 32 (relocating that citation) should be enough.
 * done
 * – how small?
 * I took this part from SL9 article, rephrase as "The spot was visible from Earth", let me know if you think more precise phrasing is needed.
 * I'll take another look at this when I go through the sources. ComplexRational (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to ref 34, though I'd suggest specifying the size of telescopes if possible – it certainly wasn't visible to the naked eye, and an amateur 4" telescope vs. Hubble is quite a difference – otherwise it will suffice for now as-is. ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * – this distance is almost 10% of the planet's circumference, and definitely not one Earth radius (which I removed because of the numerical discrepancy). If the correct size of the spot was about one Earth radius, please re-add it with the correct numbers.
 * you are right, it was " and was about 40,000 km or 25,000 mi (over six Earth radii) across." at some point, though I think we can omiss that.
 * Good to know. Is this value directly quoted in ref 34 (The Spectacular Swan Song of Shoemaker-Levy 9)? I can only view the abstract, which doesn't include it, so please check that it's verified there or add another inline source. (2b) ComplexRational (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no access to this paper; the part on SL9 was from that article Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9. I would ask for the paper ar resource exhange. Artem.G (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm asking mainly because I'm having a hard time cross-referencing this value, and the inline citation is not 100% clear. ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since from that thread, it appears that the abstract is the entire source, the source does not support the content it "cites". In that case, I must ask for another citation (values and research conclusions must be cited inline per the criteria), which I'll gladly help search for. (2b) I added extra sources for another value, but I still can't find anything for a 40000 km dark spot – this value only appears describing a height above the cloud tops – so if there isn't anything, this bit needs to be removed. ComplexRational (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed it. My mistake was to rely on content from other articles, even if SL9 is a featured one. I've also removed this false numbers from the SL9 article. Artem.G (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

ComplexRational (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I added links for some technical terms. I haven't identified every potential addition in the article, but feel free to use my edit as an example. (1a)


 * 2009–2012
 * – according to the article on the 2009 impact, the size estimate has since been revised (in 2012, perhaps more recently). To not leave out initial studies, I suggest adding a sentence in which the most up-to-date value is presented.
 * done
 * – wording is too similar to ref [42], needs better paraphrasing (2d)
 * I will quote this, don't know how to tell it without being to close.
 * (same sentence) – why a minimum? The previous clause connotes a maximum, so when this sentence is rewritten, I feel something like "for a maximum of [time]" would fit better. (1a)
 * same, it a quote: "It was observable at visible wavelengths for a few months using small size telescopes and at near mid-infrared wavelengths with professional telescopes during a minimum of six months (Sánchez-Lavega et al. 2011; de Pater et al. 2010)."
 * (ref 46) – this doesn't link directly to the 2010 impact photos; could you change the URL to the page containing them?
 * done
 * – suggest changing to "longitude 345° and latitude 2°" (1a)
 * done
 * – this should be introduced alongside the other 2010 impact. As with 1979 and Oct 2021, this is also in the table but not in prose, so it feels like a significant omission. (3a)
 * done


 * 2016–2021
 * – two things:
 * "between up to ten" does not make sense, needs to be reworded (1a)
 * 'between' removed
 * This information does not seem to be present in ref 52 (arxiv 2102.04511), so citation needed (3b)
 * removed for now, I can't find a source
 * Better now. If you do find a source, though, feel free to re-add it as the comparison may be a helpful point of reference. ComplexRational (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * – these are exactly the words of the source, please paraphrase if possible (2d) (added 19:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC))
 * done
 * – the impact event certainly happened, but the cause is not entirely certain, so I'd reword this to "suggesting am impact event likely caused by a small asteroid"
 * done
 * – introduce his profession as with others (there are other instances of this throughout the article); amateur astronomer? (1a)
 * done
 * – the quote is correctly cited, though can this be paraphrased following the style of the other sections? (1a)
 * quote removed, I left only "The impact was in Jupiter's North Tropical Zone near the southern edge of the North Temperate Belt.", all the details are in the table.


 * Phenomena associated with the impacts
 * If you intend to keep working on the article, I suggest adding more images to the latter sections, as they're quite text-heavy by comparison. (This is not required for GA.)
 * added a Jupiter gif, seems not bad
 * – I'm guessing air resistance? If so, specify and add the link.
 * linked
 * – sentence fragment; the simplest fix is to remove "that", but I'm unsure about the intended meaning. (1a)
 * done
 * – the grammar is confusing here; what is mainly composed of the debris (certainly not "the process")? (1a)
 * clarified


 * Identification of the impacting body
 * The first paragraph is consistent with the information presented elsewhere, but its citations are vague. Citation needed here to ensure compliance with scientific citation guidelines (e.g., – which studies?) (2b)
 * sentence removed; I think that text later is sufficient so this "subsequent studies" aren't needed
 * – not sure what statistics are discussed here, so "statistically significant" seems out of place; an impact event cannot be called "statistically significant". (1a)
 * I deleted this part, I agree it seems to be awkward.

ComplexRational (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Impact frequency
 * – since SL9 was in 1994, don't you mean 2009 (2009 − 1994 = 15)?
 * done. it should be 2009, you are right; the paper was published in 2010.
 * – the arXiv link is incorrect (general fix)
 * fixed
 * Pending a check of source [19], all (other) statistics are in compliance with 2b. Well done.
 * – source 19 gives a range of 5 to 20 meters; I assume 40 is a typo?
 * sure, changed


 * Search campaigns
 * – weasel words, how recent exactly? (1b)
 * removed
 * – what frequency range?
 * source said "high frame rate", change text accordingly
 * Ref 75 (nationalgeographic.com/blog) is dead and not archived at the Wayback Machine (I "fixed" the missing slash in my search). Since it isn't archived and looks like it was a blog (not preferred), could you replace it with a working, more reliable source? "Fossil traces" – the quoted term – is now also uncited. (2b)
 * archive link added; source for 'fossil traces' added, though I admit that the sources are not the best ones


 * Jupiter as a "cosmic vacuum cleaner"
 * – as this is a debated argument, citation needed. If ref 79 explicitly mentions this, relocating that citation to the end of the paragraph should suffice. (2b)
 * sources added
 * – how recent exactly? (1b)
 * removed


 * Collisions in mass culture
 * – I feel this would read better with an adverb, e.g., "potentially devastating consequences", as technically a major impact event has not affected civilization. (1a)
 * done
 * – I'm guessing "these events" are impact events on Jupiter, but given the scope of this section, clarification would render it unambiguous. (1a)
 * done

Onto sources now. ComplexRational (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for such thorough review! I'm looking for more recent papers now, and would ask at resource exchange for some papers. Artem.G (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Final round
The article has undergone great improvement throughout this review. There are only a few more things that need to be addressed before I can pass this as GA, mostly regarding criteria 2 and 4, as well as a few factual details. ComplexRational (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the lead section seems to select two dated studies (1997, 2009) to give a perspective of how frequently impacts occur. Is there a more recent one (considering the scope of the article – and the section devoted to impact frequency) that more clearly reflects the most commonly held opinion of the scientific community? (4) This is the only small thing holding up the article from (4) – a recent/all-representative source would dispel any doubt about varying published predictions. ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * working on it, still didn't find good recent source
 * I've added estimates from 2018. Not many people are working on Jupiter impacts, though I would update the article if I found newer (or better) source.
 * Definitely this is better as far as satisfying NPOV. I'd suggest trying to condense slightly further if possible, but not at the cost of balanced information; alternatively I'm okay leaving this as is for now. ComplexRational (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (table) – 18:39 is EDT, so 22:39 UTC would be correct according to the cited source.
 * done
 * Since the 2020 impact is mentioned in prose, it's a glaring omission in the table.
 * done
 * (table) – the cited source does not give the latitude, so add a different source or remove the value.
 * removed
 * (table) – the most precise latitude given in either source is +51 degrees.
 * amended
 * (table) – if I'm not mistaken (not all sources agree for each impact), the precise time quoted is 00:18:33 UTC, nor can I find the latitude in either source.
 * removed
 * (table) – timestamp is correct; add ref 19 (or another) inline. However, the latitude and longitude are uncited. Curiously, the linked Wikipedia article does not mention the latitude or longitude of the impact.
 * removed
 * (table) – the source says 305 degrees west, which should translate to 55 degrees (east) to keep consistency with the other values. A source is also needed for the time, 13:30 UTC.
 * done and added
 * For SL9 in the table, I suggest omitting the latitude and longitude and/or noting that they vary for each fragment. This same note could also be used for other events with multiple impacting fragments.
 * done
 * I think you accidentally noted this for the 1979 impact, so made the correction in the table. ComplexRational (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (third paragraph) – statements attributed to refs 29 and 30 are not in the citations given; specifically, the numbers (times, distances, and temperatures) quoted in the article do not match the sources.
 * working on it.
 * The new sources look good, though this paragraph too closely matches the book source, so needs a bit of paraphrasing. ComplexRational (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The blockquote works well enough as constructed. ComplexRational (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * – the content is cited, so not an immediate GA concern, though ref 46 (astronomy.com) is a dead URL.
 * archive url added
 * – I know this is a precise description, but the wording is too similar to the cited source, so try to paraphrase if possible.
 * sentence removed, it didn't add any valuable info

I think I've addressed all the points you've highlighted, would be great if you can have a look. And thanks again for thorough review; I've realized that my (big) mistake was to rely on sources taken from other articles. Most of the comments I believe were about either the table or the SL9 section; both were copied from other articles. That's a good lesson for me! Artem.G (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good aside from one fix I already made and the two comments I replied to. Once that's done, I'm ready to pass the article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any more outstanding concerns that would hold up the GA, so I'm passing it. Thank you for improving the article, and congratulations! ComplexRational (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks a lot! It was a great review, was very nice to improve the article with you excellent comments! Artem.G (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)