Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atmosphere of Jupiter


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008.

Atmosphere of Jupiter

 * Nominators: Ruslik (talk), Serendipodous (talk),  Nergaal (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it now fully satisfies FA criteria, in my opinion. I also want to say that it is the most complicated article I have ever written. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - 40KB on a ball of game millions of miles away? Argh.
 * Dude, you write FAs about video games.  Serendi pod ous  19:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which sell millions of dollars in merchandise and are the largest entertainment industry on Earth, thank you very much :P besides, I don't write 40KB on them, they are all more manageable sizes :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Video games don't last 20 years. The planets are for all time. The way things are going, we'll be telling our grandchildren how great it was when we had electricity, and when that happens, looking up at the planets will be the only entertainment left, like it used to be for thousands of years.  Serendi pod ous  00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to everything in a block below my comments so I can keep track of things. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Images : are believed to meet criteria as of this revision -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Jupiter Belt System.JPG - get rid of all the migration to commons bot crap in the information fields and replace it with the original info
 * I do not agree that this information is crap, it is necessary to document the move. I am not sure I can remove it without violating some commons' policy. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I find that bot frustrating as well. I wouldn't remove the information, which is sometimes necessary, but simply supplement it with the necessary source, date, and author information. Awadewit (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Structure of Jovian atmosphere.png - I'm not seeing a license, just a declaration.
 * I now can see the full license tag. If you still do not see it, you can visit commons page directly. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Map of Jupiter.jpg - duplicate Featured picture templates, should have information template, and a separate heading for licensing.
 * They are different templates. The upper template is situated on the commons' page. The lower template is from English Wikipedia. Both are necessary and should stay. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I added template and headings (see commons page). Ruslik (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:PIA02863 - Jupiter surface motion animation.gif - same issues as above.
 * The same as with the image above. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I added template and headings (see commons page). Ruslik (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:NH Jupiter IR.jpg - source (URL)? Wouldn't the pd-nasa template be better for licensing?
 * Done. Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Pioneer 10 jup.jpg - original author?
 * I removed this image. Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Jupiter-Earth-Spot comparison.jpg - same as above
 * This is derivative work created by user:Brian0918 and user:Herbee from two NASA images (it is written in the infor template). Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Jupiter Great Red Spot Animation.gif - fill out information template
 * Done. Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Jovian--OvalBA.jpg - missing info
 * Replaced with image:Oval_BA_(Hubble).jpg (from commons). Ruslik (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Jupiter little red spot NH.png - source?
 * I changed this image to Commons' equivalent (Image:Jupiter_little_red_spot_(New_Horizons).jpg). Ruslik (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Great Red Spot From Voyager 1.jpg - headers?
 * Done. Ruslik (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Red spot jr in color.jpg - be nice if there was a information template?
 * I changed this image to Commons' equivalent (Image:Jupiter_Weaver02_NASA.jpg). Ruslik (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to point your attention that all majority those images are from commons. Commons have different policies and they are not part of the English Wikipedia. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, some of them are actually on en.wiki. Ruslik (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if they are on Commons, they still need proper licensing. Gary King  ( talk ) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Jupiter Belt System.JPG, Image:NH Jupiter IR.jpg, Image:Jupiter-Earth-Spot comparison.jpg, are still missing offsite URLs for the original source image; all other concerns taken care of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * first and last should be ok now. For the second one I cannot find a better link than a bbc one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
 * I subbed the original New Horizons gallery as a source.  Serendi pod ous  13:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think now all images are OK. Ruslik (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Juplit.jpg needs author/date/source/link, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Subbed. Also did the same for the white ovals image.  Serendi pod ous  00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I didn't contribute this time... ;). Anyway, the prose could use a bit of a touch-up. I'll get around to a copyedit ASAP. &mdash; Ceran  ♦ ♦ ( speak) 21:22, 26 November 2008
 * The density gradually decreases until one typical for the interplanetary space is reached about 5,000 km above 1 bar pressure level. I added a hidden comment, remove it when you're done, but what comes after typical? &mdash; Ceran  ♦ ♦ ( speak) 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the sentence (avoided mentioning typical for interplanetary space). Ruslik (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Links :
 * Retrograde and Prograde link respectively to a dab page and a redirect to Retrograde and direct motion, an astronomical topic unrelated to the sense here.
 * Isotopic links to a dab page. I was tempted to make a pipe from 'isotopic ratio' to isotopic signature, or could it just be a plain link?
 * I fixed some other more straightforward problems. William Avery (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I linked retrograde to Retrograde and direct motion, and isotopic to Isotope_geochemistry. The latter is the best target that I can find. I also see no problem with the redirect. The definitions of prograde (in the direction of motion), and retrograde (against the direction of motion) are the same everywhere, so Retrograde and direct motion article, which of course says nothing about atmospheres, is a good link. Ruslik (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; after re-examining Retrograde and direct motion article.William Avery (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;I performed a review during PR and I thought it was in fine shape then. After another go through, it appears to more than meet FA criteria. I have no significant issues to report.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Copyediting now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "molecular envelope" isn't in Webster's 3rd Unabridged or in Wikipedia, and I don't know what it means. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It refers to the outer layer of Jupiter, where hydrogen is in molecular state. Deeper inside the planet, where pressure is higher, hydrogen is in metallic state. Ruslik (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Please define the term in the article at the first occurrence. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * done.  Serendi pod ous  16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't support at Webster's for "air" meaning "Jovian atmosphere", but it's okay with me if it's a common term among astronomers, since the meaning is clear enough. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is frequently used in literature. Ruslik (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Image use policy, "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size." Your animation is 7.5M.  Display just one frame, so that either the reader gets the animation if they choose to click on the thumbnail, or if they click on a link in the caption. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "Oval BA should not be confused with another major storm on Jupiter, the Little Red Spot (or Baby Red Spot) which turned red before the GRS and Oval BA shredded it in late June/early July of 2008." HubbleSite does not support the suggestion that Oval BA was involved in the shredding. Also, there are several cases of the digit 1 being used in prose. Should this be changed to "one"? The double adjective "1 bar" needs a hyphen. Wronkiew (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Little Red Spot passed in between two other red spots. It appears to left of GRS on the image 2, and its remnants appear to right of the latter in image 3. I think such numbers as 1 bar should written in the scientific style, where digitas are usually used. 1-bar ? I actually have never wirtten it in this style. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like single digit measurements are fine, so you should leave them. Digits and spelled out units should be hyphenated in cases where they are double adjectives, see WP:HYPHEN. It is not apparent to me from looking at the image that Oval BA was involved with LRS, I think it needs to be clarified or a better source found. Wronkiew (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Ruslik may be confusing that image with this one. That one is of the mergance of the three white ovals to form Oval BA.  Serendi pod ous  19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've subbed the New Horizons image (which is a duplicate of one below) with the image of the three red spots in conflict.  Serendi pod ous  19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the image from ref 87 (you actually added it), which shows that Baby Spot was shredded. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The image doesn't show the shredding, just the aftereffects. The caption for the image on HubbleSite says only that LRS was "caught up in the anticyclonic spin of the GRS". It does not say that Oval BA was involved. Wronkiew (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I concede this point. Little Baby (Spot) was eaten by GRS alone. Oval BA only stood by as a silent witness. I added new reference and clarified that sentence. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And here we see the cub eyeing the mother intently as she stalks and kills her prey, learning vital skills for later life...  Serendi pod ous  23:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional comments I will feel comfortable supporting if these are resolved or suitably explained. Wronkiew (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see less speculation about the processes and properties of Jupiter in the article. There is an over-reliance on the phrase "is thought to" or its variants where the facts are uncertain. This is especially apparent in the lead.
 * I removed some "is thought to". However these 'facts' are just conclusions form rather complicated models, which are often equivocal. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead says that hydrogen sulfide has not been directly observed, but "Observational history" says that HST detected it through spectroscopy.
 * You are right here. Only water was not directly observed in sufficient amounts. I changed this. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "The latter is caused by the higher condensation heat of the water and the higher water abundance as compared to the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide (as oxygen is a more abundant chemical element than either nitrogen or sulfur)." It's not clear what "the latter" is referring to.
 * Done. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "This ion produces strong emissions in the mid-infrared part of the spectrum, at the wavelengths between 3–5 μm, and is the main cooler of the thermosphere." I was not able to find any support for H3+ being the "main cooler of the thermosphere" in Yelle 2004.
 * On page 27 Interestingly, they find that thermal conduction plays a small role in this region and heating is balanced primarily by H+3 cooling. I can add more a specific ref if necessary. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "At the present rate of reduction it would become circular by 2040, although this is unlikely because of the distortion effect of the neighboring jet streams." There is no reference to support this.
 * Added a reference. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, the article is accurate, verifiable, and well written. Wronkiew (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dabs, pls review the dab links in the toolbox. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Mrs Dabs. :-) Ruslik (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.