Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rings 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 17:04, 10 June 2007.

Rings of Jupiter
Everybody knows that Saturn has rings. However the fact that all giant planets have the ring systems is far less known. This article is about the Jovian ring system, which is faint but interesting. So I think it deserves FA status. Ruslik 13:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: However a few points -


 * "In nineties the Jovian ring system was thoroughly investigated by the Galileo orbiter.[2]" - copyedit. In the ninties, the .....
 * Note: "nineties" seems to be a valid word in my Webster's dictionary. I'm unfamiliar with "ninties". Is that a British-English spelling? &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * I think the editor misspelled "nineties" and wanted to point out the missing "the." Awadewit Talk 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lesson learnt for the day: When providing review comments, avoid making errors or else the review feedback will sound confusing. Yes, i wanted to point to the missing "the" and a second yes (admit) that it was not for "ninties" (or nineties as it should be rightly worded). Hope that clarifies. Kalyan 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thank you for the clarification. &mdash; RJH (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I inserted 'the'. Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The rings were also observed by Hubble Space Telescope and from the ground.[3]" - when? 90s? or do they continue to observe them in which case the sentence should revert to present tense
 * ✅ I added a phrase 'for the last 25 years' and changed tense to present perfect. Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The image in the lead section needs a better explanation than "The rings of Jupiter"
 * Shouldn't the main ring section come after the halo ring section - so that it fits an order? Kalyan 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This order (main->halo->gossamer) comes from the peer reviewed literature that I have read i.e. the order has been established long ago. I think it's unwise to change it now (see for instance ). Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This order (main->halo->gossamer) comes from the peer reviewed literature that I have read i.e. the order has been established long ago. I think it's unwise to change it now (see for instance ). Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Exploration section should come under the lead as it is sort of a 'History' section. Will look more later. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In other articles including some with FA status (Mars (planet), Jupiter (planet)) this section is positioned close to the end (or at the end) of the article. So, I think it is wise to follow the example. Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this section should be expanded a little bit. It should also include the time line of when the structures were really explored in addition to including only how they were explored. DSachan 07:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added dates to the exploration section. Ruslik 14:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral -- can we get "about 15 μm" to be 15 plus-or-minus it's 95% confidence interval micrometers, please? BenB4 06:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added 1σ confidence interval. Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, ignore all above, please........c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 09:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to me; just one thing: can you fix up the 'halo ring' title? it's been offset oddly by the above picture. I'll read through in more detail later. --Paaerduag 05:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually saw nothing odd with 'Halo ring' title, but appearance of wiki articles sometimes depends on screen resolution and your browser. Anyway I moved picture to the right. Is it good now? Ruslik 14:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good, comprehensive and well sourced. I support it. DSachan 23:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Object Sorry, 16 footnotes? no chance.c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How many footnotes should it have: 20, 1000 or 10100. Or can you specify number of footnotes per 1 kb of text? Ruslik 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment most of the footnotes are used multiple times. I count 135 actual citations. Bluap 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Although reviewer didn't specify a necessary number I added some additional footnotes and also expanded 'External links' section. I think the objection was addressed, taking into account that all footnotes are used many times (see comment above). Ruslik 12:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - This article provides a great overview of the current state of knowledge of the Jovian ring system, its various components, and the types of observations that have been brought to bear on the subject. My only suggestion would be to switch the two images of the main ring by Galileo and New Horizons.  It seems like the New Horizons image, showing the main ring at low- and high-phase angles would make a great companion to the section in the article on the appearance of the Main Ring in changing lighting conditions.  Otherwise, this article has my support. --Volcanopele 08:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I absolutely agree with your suggestion. So I switched images. Ruslik 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: "In the nineties, the Jovian ring system was thoroughly investigated by the Galileo orbiter." You never mentioned the Jovian Ring system before. If that is the official name for the rings of Jupiter the name should be mentioned earlier, near the bolded article title so there is a lexical link. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added an explanation of the Jovian ring system in the first sentence of the article. Ruslik 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose—1a. Here are examples just from the lead.
 * "The largest planet in the Solar System – Jupiter possesses a planetary ring system called also the Jovian ring system." Not a spaced en dash, but a comma.
 * MoS on captions: no period unless a proper sentence.
 * Why repeat links? ("Solar System" twice at the top.)
 * "nineties"—nah, "1990s", especially in the same sentence as Galileo.
 * "the past 25 years", not the "last".
 * Remove "very"—two of them.
 * "It comprises four main components: a thick inner torus of particles known as the 'halo ring', a relatively bright, razor-thin 'main ring', and two wide, thick and faint outer 'gossamer rings' named for the moons of whose material they are composed: Amalthea and Thebe." This complex, nested sentence needs better punctuation. "It comprises four main components: a thick inner torus of particles known as the 'halo ring'; a relatively bright, razor-thin 'main ring'; and two wide, thick and faint outer 'gossamer rings', named for the moons of whose material they are composed: Amalthea and Thebe." MOS says to use italic for words as words.
 * "High resolution images"—better with hyphen, IMO. Same for "high velocity impacts". Makes it easier for non-experts.
 * "The Jovian rings have reddish color (except the halo ring, which is neutral or blue) in visible and near-infrared light." Start with "In visible and near-infrared light, the ..." and change parenthesis into comma. "a reddish color".
 * I can see that parentheses will be the order of the day in the main text. Prefer commas or em/spaced en dashes, at least some of the time.

This is not good enough yet. Find a fresh copy-editor who's not familiar with the text. Tony 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I understand that 1a is only problem that persists. I included corrections proposed above and made a proofreading request WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading. Ruslik 12:33, 9 June 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.