Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jupiter/archive2

Jupiter

 * Nominator(s):  Serendi pod ous  17:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the largest planet in the Solar System. It was previously an FA, but got delisted.  Serendi pod ous  17:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild
Oh, nice! Good for you. I nearly got sucked into doing some work on this a couple of years ago, but managed to duck it. I am glad now that I did, as you seem to have done a sterling job. I shall try to review, but cannot promise to.
 * As a drive by niggle "with two more either en route or awaiting launch." As the numbers for each of the two options can only be one, two, or zero, and as the logic of how you have constructed the sentence requires it to be one of each, it seems easier to just say this than use the current formulation. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * c/e'd. :-)  Serendi pod ous  08:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

GWL
Serendipodous, reading the article I don't feel as though this is the kinda article I'd call FA, so I'm going to oppose this. However, seeing the miserably silent PR that lead to this FAC, I'll give some comments nonetheless. Keep in mind they're not exhaustive.  Gerald WL  09:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Pro tip: since peer reviews are not going to inherently get any reviews, the cheat here is to review GANs, FACs, FLCs, or even others' PRs, then ask for a review in exchange. They're not mandated to review, so for me I just kinda go everywhere.
 * There is one citation needed tag. With this in mind--and I don't know if you've done this yet-- it's probably best to re-check all sources to make sure they're all sourced and authentic to the source. You may ask other people to assist if it's too much. On the other hand, watch out for potential cite overkill, like "and Galileo spacecraft.[220 221 222 223]"
 * The writing too is kind of all over the place-- this is my main reason to opposing. There are some sections where I wonder, "Isn't there more to this than it is saying here?" I'll not act like I know everything, but I'd take an example from the "In culture" part. You put a hatnote linking to Jupiter in fiction, which talks about Jup as depicted in fictional literature; I expect that topic to be briefly concerned here too.
 * Gallery sections aren't something you see in a conventional FAC, because any important images would be put in the body. If they can't be, not everything has to be here: readers may go to Commons if they wish to see more images.
 * All images need to have alt texts; keep in mind that despite the captions' very descriptive nature, some of them need more than just "see caption".
 * The infobox has a lot of references. In general, it's best to copy these info in the body as well, to reduce the need for infobox refs.
 * The history section should probably come after the formation since they're related.
 * Make sure all those that need italics or some kind of markup have it. For example, "of the Voyager 1 probe in 1979."-- italicize VOyager 1.
 * Make sure all tables comply MOS:DTT accessibility guidelines.
 * The external links might be too much. The first link, for instance, offers nothing but brief info with an image; if there's any of it that can be put in the article, that's the better route. The Flickr link in particular is dead.
 * The lead must cover the bottom line of almost everything. In particular, I find it odd that the history of humans and Jupiter only cover one short paragraph, alongside a small fragment in para 3.

Jens
Will take me some time to get through, but here a start:
 * As a consequence, the planet must have formed before the solar nebula was fully dispersed – I do not understand why this means that Jupiter was necessarily the first planet; doesn't this apply to other planets too? Maybe it needs to be clearer.
 * According to the "grand tack hypothesis", Jupiter began to form at a distance of roughly 3.5 AU (520 million km; 330 million mi) from the Sun. – As non-expert reader, I did not know how many AU Jupiter is from the sun today, so it was difficult to make sense of this sentence. Maybe mention that the 3.5 AU are closer to the sun than its current location?
 * The resulting formation timescales of terrestrial planets appear to be inconsistent with the measured elemental composition. It is likely that Jupiter would have settled into an orbit much closer to the Sun if it had migrated through the solar nebula. – I feel there are some connection words missing between those sentences that would be helpful to follow the argument.
 * location. during an epoch approximately 2–3 million years after the planet began to form – there is a dot too much?
 * hydrogen – I assume this refers to H2, not to H?
 * Jupiter's helium abundance is about 80% that of the Sun due to precipitation of these elements – Which elements? You only mentioned one element (helium). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

UC
A few points: I read only very quickly over the technical sections, so mostly focused on the historical and cultural material. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * : this is true, but slightly beside the point. Iovis is simply the Old Latin name for the god: Iuppiter is a compound from (I think) Iovis pater ("Father Iovis"), which replaces the nominative form only of Iovis in Classical.
 * : italicise both per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
 * : why have we gone from talking about its atmosphere to specifically its upper atmosphere here?
 * : consider about 10% for consistency.
 * : I believe the MoS is very discouraging about italics or similar to be emphatic in article text.
 * Can we expand the one-sentence introductory paragraph to Atmosphere at all? There's a lot of what might seem like good material in the opening paragraph of the dedicated article.
 * : how is that pronounced?
 * We should give a rough date for Gan De, as his date becomes important in relation to Galileo's.
 * On which: Galileo is introduced on second mention, and with a false title (better as the Italian polymath...)
 * Continuing the theme: why does Galileo get a nationality and a profession, but most (though not all) other characters in this section get neither?

SilverTiger12
Saving a place for later. --Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review
Files reviewed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Jupiter New Horizons.jpg
 * File:Jupiter and Europa 2020.tiff
 * File:Jupiter diagram.svg
 * File:790106-0203 Voyager 58M to 31M reduced.gif
 * File:Map of Jupiter.jpg
 * File:PIA21641-Jupiter-SouthernStorms-JunoCam-20170525.jpg
 * File:Jupiters iconic Great Red Spot.jpg
 * File:Oval BA (Hubble).jpg
 * File:PIA23465-PlanetJupiter-Aurorae-20191001.gif It seems to be the same, but the image in Commons is an animated gif and the one in NASA is a static jpg.
 * File:Hubble Captures Vivid Auroras in Jupiter's Atmosphere.jpg Source link is dead.
 * File:PIA21033 Juno's View of Jupiter's Southern Lights.jpg
 * File:Solar system orrery outer planets.gif
 * File:Jupiter-and-its-moons-amateur.jpg
 * File:Almagest-planets.svg
 * File:Medicean Stars.png If this was made by Galileo, shouldn't it be PD-OLD-100 by now?
 * File:Jupiter.Radio.VLAl.jpg Images from NASA's "Picture of the day" may be copyrighted.
 * File:Jupiter and Europa (NIRCam) Commissioning Image.jpg, but you may want to fix that error in the "information" template.
 * File:Galileo Preparations - GPN-2000-000672.jpg Source is a dead link
 * File:Juno prepared for rotation test stand.jpg Source is a dead link
 * File:Juno - JunoCam.webm I doubt someone has the authority to make a "own work" license from JunoCam
 * File:The Galilean satellites (the four largest moons of Jupiter).tif
 * File:Jupiter showing SL9 impact sites.jpg
 * File:Jupiter-bonatti.png
 * File:Gemini North Infrared View of Jupiter.jpg
 * File:Hubble Visible View of Jupiter.jpg
 * File:Hubble Ultraviolet View of Jupiter.jpg
 * File:Hubble's View of Jupiter and Europa in August 2020.jpg
 * File:Jupiter Showcases Auroras, Hazes (NIRCam Closeup) - 52303461859.png

Sorry for the lack of response
Thanks guys. The lack of Peer review misled me into thinking everything was fine and that the FA would be easy. Clearly that is not the case. I am currently occupied on another (un-Wikipedia-related) matter, but will return to this once that is done.  Serendi pod ous  20:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Real life can be inconvenient like that; it's fine. Ping me when you are back though, please. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note

 * Having been open for a while now, with an oppose and a lack of support, it's not looking very good. Unless there's a significant shift towards a consensus favoring promotion within the next few days, there's a risk that the nomination may be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Closing comment. Given the nominator's inactivity due to personal life matter, the unresolved oppose from more than two weeks ago and many outstanding comments, I'm going to archive this. I suggest that the nominator, once fully back, work with the reviewers, possibly through a formal/informal peer review and then hopefully bring it back. The usual two-week wait before making another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

FrB.TG (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)