Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Jupiter

 * Archive of FAC #1

This page has undergone significant changes and enhancements since the prior FAC attempt. The new layout has been modelled after the Mercury (planet) and Venus FA pages, with a few differences due to the nature of the planet. I believe that all of the issues on the FAC and PR have been addressed, with one exception which I am disputing. (Namely the assertion that Jupiter's rings are not composed of ejected material from satellites.) Please take a look and let me know if anything else needs to be done to bring this up to FA quality. Thank you. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for this. These astronomy articles are a joy to read.-BillDeanCarter 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was the work of a number of people. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Very detailed, not bad at all. Some suggestions. Perhaps you could move the Aurora Borealis picture to an upper paragraph as it cuts into and forcibly indents the next section (on my 1024x768 screen, at least). The retrograde diagram could also be moved to the start of the upper paragraph, to give it more...symmetry? Perhaps the "observation" section could be integrated into the "studies of Jupiter" or an "astronomy" section, since they're more-or-less sections about human study of the planet itself. If you could do something about the margin of the "fly-bys" table, please do so. Right now, the text of the paragraph it sits in is directly adjacent to its left margin. The "Effect on the Solar System" title seems a bit...hmm...might be better with a more neutral statement like "Interactions with Solar System" or something of the sort. Same deal with "Possibility of Life" section. Would the header "Xenobiology" be better, perhaps? Oh, and the Bibliography section should be a separate section adjacent to but not part of the References, for style pusposes. Aside from these minor points, great work. Shrumster 06:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback.
 * The images you mention are placed at the location of corresponding text. I moved the aurora to the right.
 * I'd rather not merge the Observation section; it corresponds to the same sections on the Mercury and Venus pages, and it's about what an observer would notice rather than a history.
 * The left margin of the Fly-by mission table has been set to 1em.
 * I changed the "Effect on Solar System" section title per your suggestion.
 * Xenobiology is relatively obscure and may be obsolete. I think astrobiology is used these days. But the current title seems pretty appropriate.
 * The reference sections have been split out as you suggested.
 * Thanks again! &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support great article, well-illustrated and referenced. igordebraga ≠ 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Support Just needs a bit of tweaking in the prose, but I will support once these done. Cas Liber 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "a quite similar composition" should be "quite a similar composition", or maybe just "a similar composition"


 * "transitions" as a verb, comes across as clunky, needs a better verb ("becomes" could fit, "metamorphoses" ?)


 * "It has lasted from at least 1831" - umm, sounds a bit colloquial, how about "It is known to have been in existence since..."


 * Done and done. Thank you for the corrections. &mdash; RJH (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am an avid reader of popular science books, so I cannot comment on the page's comprehensiveness or accuracy, but I can tell you how it appears to an educated, interested, non-scientist. I found it pretty easy to follow (except for a few spots I list below) and quite informative. Nice work. I am fully willing to support if the following issues are addressed.
 * I now feel that the majority of the issues have been addressed and I am sure any outstanding ones will be, so I support. I learned a lot from reading this article. Awadewit 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your close review of the article. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Jovian being the adjectival form of Jupiter, derived from the Latin genitive of the noun). - This is helpful information, but I do not think that it is necessary to put it in the lead.
 * Since Jovian is used in the preceding sentence (and the remainder of the text), some type of definition seems appropriate, at least to me.
 * Perhaps you could leave out the Latin clause? It just seems overly detailed for the lead. Awadewit 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, done.
 * Instead of saying Jupiter was named during the era of Classical Antiquity might you give the dates?
 * As an expediency I just removed that statement.
 * The planet Jupiter is primarily composed of hydrogen, with a smaller portion of helium and possibly a rocky core. - "portion" seems like odd diction here
 * Okay I tried to remedy this.
 * Because of its rapid rotation the planet possesses a slight but noticeable bulge around the equator, giving it an oblate appearance. - perhaps you could briefly define "oblate" for non-specialists, especially since this sentence is in the lead?
 * I think it's addressed.
 * Jupiter's upper atmosphere is composed of about 93% hydrogen and 7% helium by number of atoms (86% H2 and 13% He by fraction of gas molecules—see table at top), or approximately 75% hydrogen and 24% helium by mass, with the remaining 1% of the mass consisting of other elements. The interior contains denser materials such that the distribution is roughly 71% hydrogen, 24% helium and 5% other elements, by mass. - might you explain a bit about the difference between measuring by atoms and by mass for the non-specialist?
 * I tried to clarify this.
 * This is much better.
 * Based on spectroscopy, Saturn is thought to have a quite similar composition to Jupiter, but Uranus and Neptune have relatively much less hydrogen and helium. - for the non-specialist, mention again that the reason you are comparing Jupiter to these other planets is because they are the other gas giants
 * I added a comment about gas giants.
 * Extrasolar planets have been discovered with much greater masses. - do you mean "Extrasolar planets similar to Jupiter but with much greater masses have been discovered"?
 * I didn't write that, but I couldn't say for certain that the extrasolar planets with greater mass are like Jupiter. Some are located very near their star and appear highly expanded, for example. I wouldn't want to say that is like Jupiter and I'm not sure of the benefit of needing to explain it in a section on mass. :-)
 * I guess what I meant was, are they gas giants like Jupiter? I was under the impression that most of the extrasolar planets that have been discovered are gas giants.
 * Could be, but I couldn't say with absolute certainty that all discovered planets with masses greater than Jupiter are gas giants. All we know about some is their mass.
 * Jupiter is thought to have about as large a diameter as a planet of its composition can; adding extra mass would cause the planet to shrink because of increased gravitational compression. - awkward sentence
 * I think it reads better now.
 * Jupiter's low obliquity means that the poles constantly receive less solar radiation than at the planet's equatorial region. Internal convection processes transport more energy to the poles, however, balancing out the surface temperature across the planet. - This sentence could be explained a little more for the non-specialist.
 * I changed "obliquity" to axial tilt. Otherwise I'm uncertain what part is unclear. Could you clarify?
 * When you say "internal convection processes," what do you mean? What is moving the heat, exactly? Clouds? Storms?
 * Convection within the interior. I reworded it for better clarity (I hope).
 * It has lasted from at least 1831,[26] and possibly since 1665. - awkward phrasing - Perhaps, "It has existed since at least..."
 * This appears to have been addressed already.
 * The tops of this storm is about 8 km above the surrounding cloudtops. - do you mean "tops . . .are" or "top . . .is"?
 * It's an irregular feature, so perhaps the original author meant the highest cloud features? Anyway I changed it to say maximum altitude.
 * The entire last paragraph of the "Great Red Spot" section is awkwardly worded.
 * Rewrote paragraph.
 * The first paragraph of "Magnetosphere" could be explained better for the non-specialist. Perhaps "torus" could also be linked to the appropriate torus page.
 * I tried, while attempting to stay on topic. Is it any clearer?
 * Yes.
 * That is, for a period of time Jupiter seems to move backward in the night sky, forming a graceful looping motion. - is this POV? why is it "graceful"?
 * Fixed.
 * The astronomical symbol for the planet is a stylized representation of the god's lightning bolt. - could you insert the actual symbol here so that this explanation is connected to the symbol at the top of the page?
 * I copied it in from the Solar System page.
 * The discovery, a testament to his extraordinary eyesight, made him quickly famous. - why his eyesight? this sounds a bit ood - perhaps you could explain a bit further
 * Done.
 * They discovered that the radiation fields in the vicinity of the planet were much higher than expected, but managed to survive in that environment. - what "managed to survive"? the spacecraft or the radiation fields?
 * Clarified.
 * How come "Pioneer" isn't itacilized? Is there a particular reason it isn't when the other missions are? Also, the italicization is inconsistent. Sometimes Voyager, Cassini, etc. are italicized and sometimes they are not.
 * Fixed.
 * This is seen most dramatically in Io's extraordinary volcanic activity, and to a somewhat less dramatic extent in the geologically young surface of Europa indicating recent resurfacing. - "resurfacing" sounds a bit odd; I was waiting for something after that - "resurfacing" of what? - you might think about rewording
 * Clarified.
 * I would not use a Teaching Company lecture as a reference (see note 5). They are expensive and therefore hard to access (not everyone is willing to download). Moreover, since you use it only for an etymology, there are obviously better sources.
 * Replaced citation.
 * Also, not all of the notes are formatted the same way. Some have the first name of the author first and some have the last name first, etc. Your "Additional Reading" citations are also not cited in the same format and I do not think that you need to link the years.
 * Citations modified to use consistent author naming order. The "Additional reading" section uses the standard wikipedia citation templates. I left the years linked because in the past others have insistent they be present; opinions on this seem to flip-flop endlessly over time.
 * Why does the year come first in one of the citations? That should never happen. It should always be either the author or the title.
 * That article did not have any authors listed. I replaced it with another reference.
 * Ah, I see. It's often helpful to put "Anonymous" in the author spot when the author is not listed.
 * I have some prose/clarity comments, but overall this article is very well-organized and well-written, so I'll just go ahead and support.
 * 'The density of this planet is the second highest of the gas giant planets' - mention which one it's second to.
 * Neptune. I added a note.
 * I'm not sure what it means to say that the atmosphere contains trace amounts of 'rock'.
 * Fixed.
 * 'However, because of the lack of atmospheric entries probes...' - should this be 'entry probes'? Also, the parenthetical at the end of this sentence is awkward; isn't the word 'other' sufficient to exclude Jupiter?
 * Addressed.
 * I don't remember the timescale for this and this may therefore be a stupid question, but how does the rate of Jupiter's contraction compare to the estimated life of the sun?
 * Age of the Sun = ~4.57 &times; 109; current rate of contraction = 2 cm/yr = 2 &times; 10-5 km. If one were to assume this rate were constant, then the total contraction would be ~9 &times; 104 km = 90,000 km. It's on the order of magnitude of Jupiter's radius, which matches the sentence: "When it was first formed, Jupiter was much hotter and was about twice its current diameter."
 * I might have missed it, but kelvin (unit) should be wikilinked somewhere in the text.
 * Okay it's linked a couple of times.
 * No need for parenthetical '(See cloud pattern on Jupiter.)' when it's already linked as the main article.
 * Right.
 * Why is lightning evidence specifically for a water layer in the atmosphere?
 * I'm certainly no expert in chemistry, but I believe it has something to do with water being a good "charge separator" (in contrast to methane). Through convection of the water, a separation in electrical potential is produced that results in a lightning discharge.
 * The lead says Jupiter is the third-brightest object in the night sky, but the observation section says fourth.
 * The key word there is "night". :-)
 * I don't understand what 'with Thor being identified with the Roman god Jupiter' is meant to imply. Was Thor identified with the planet in Norse mythology? Otherwise I don't know what possible relevance this has. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a note; they are associated because they represent similar powers over thunder.
 * If there are before-and-after shots of the three ovals that merged recently, that would be a great addition to the existing images.
 * There's an illustration on the linked Oval BA page, but it's not a very good shot.
 * Am I right in remembering that feared 'contamination' of Europa by the Galileo orbiter was motivated by speculation that Europa might support life? Whatever the reason was, it ought to be briefly stated.
 * Yes. I added a brief note; the Europa (moon) page contains more discussion.
 * Admittedly personal bias, but ending the article with the wimpy and speculative 'possibility of life' section is sort of anticlimactic. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I more or less agree, but it was a collaborative effort so I didn't want to just yank it without some sort of consensus.
 * Support, although I agree with Opabinia regalis's suggestions. Great work! J. Spencer 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your observations and corrections. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.