Talk:Jupiter/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mover of molehills (talk · contribs) 13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This will likely take me longer than a week to review because it is such a long article, but I look forward to getting started! Mover of molehills (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll organize the review by the GA criteria:

Well-written[edit]

@Praemonitus: One general thing that I have noticed about this article is that it is not standardized to British or American English (it uses both color/colour, etc). I would pick one and try to make all relevant words consistent across the article. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In edit mode it shows as being in British English at the top, but that's not something I'm adept at refining. Do you know if there is a tool for identifying the appropriate words? Praemonitus (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I could. Praemonitus (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you have looks good. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt know there was a way to find which language was standardized for the article, interesting! MaximusEditor (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

  • The delivery of information is the last two sentences of the first paragraph is a little bit awkward. I would rearrange them to "Jupiter is the third brightest natural object in the Earth's night sky after the Moon and Venus, and it has been observed since prehistoric times. The planet is named for the god Jupiter, the king of the gods in Roman mythology." I think that this makes the information a little bit more organized within each sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rearrangement is good, but I still think it's important to change "people have been observing it" to "it has been observed" - this is passive, but it feels much more academic and appropriate for the context. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "the other giant planets" to "many other giant planets" - this isn't a category with a fixed number of planets in it. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term planet is usually specific to the Solar System (in contrast to exoplanet), but I've refined it. Praemonitus (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. What you have looks pretty good - could you just change "like the Sun's other giant planets" to "like the other giant planets in the solar system"? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The ongoing contraction... Sun" is a little bit awkward right now. I would rephrase it as follows: first change "Jupiter lacks a well-defined solid surface" to "it lacks a well-defined solid surface" in the previous sentence for good alternation of pronouns. Then, change the sentence in question to "The ongoing contraction of Jupiter's interior generates more heat than it receives from the sun, bringing its average surface temperature to INSERT TEMPERATURE." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done in part; I'm going to avoid specifying an 'average' temperature because it varies by altitude and latitude. Praemonitus (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: I would use a colon instead of a semicolon after "oblate spheroid." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "visibly segregated into several bands at different latitudes" comes across as a bit clunky. I would reccommend a rephrase like "divided into a series of horizontal bands," which captures the same meaning while being more concise. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is "horizontal" in space? I think latitude is more accurate since it is related to the direction of rotation. Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "known to have existed since... saw it" (about the Great Red Spot) needs some work to. Is there any chance you could rephrase it as "which has been observed since the invention of telescopes in the 17th century"? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Active voice: change "Surrounding Jupiter is" to "Jupiter is surrounded by". Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "four large Galilean moons discovered by Galileo" comes across as repetitive. Could you just saw "four large moons discovered by Galileo," and then wikilink "four large moons to the appropriate article? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph on exploring Jupiter, I would change "explored on several occasions by robotic spacecraft" to "explored by many more robotic spacecraft." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Jupiter has been explored... 1995" is a bit of a run-on. I would fix it by changing "and later by the Galileo orbiter, which arrived at Jupiter in 1995" to "and later with the 1995 Galileo orbiter" (note the change from "by" to "with" for consistency). Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to wikilink Europa at the end of the lede, since it's been mentioned already. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We may need to add a few more things to the lede to make it more exhaustive later on - but for now, the writing here is very strong! Mover of molehills (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name and symbol[edit]

Right now, this section reads to me as the weakest one of the article, so I'm going to have more comments than usual:

  • The first sentence of this section is quite confusing. I would change it to "In both the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, Jupiter was named for the chief god of the divine pantheon: Zeus for the Greeks and Jupiter for the Romans." Mover of molehills (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence would be less confusing as "The International Astronomical Union (IAU) decided to officially name the planet Jupiter in 1976." (I don't think it's necessary to mention the exact resolution). Mover of molehills (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, although I prefer the word 'adopt' in this case. Praemonitus (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, the third sentence needs a rephrase as well. My proposal is: "Today, the IAU continues to name newly discovered satellites of Jupiter after mythological figures with a connection to the Roman god." Mover of molehills (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to be careful with this one because "connection" is more vague than the IAU definition. Praemonitus (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. The sentence would flow better if you just changed "Jove/Jupiter" to "the god." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Jove... fourteenth century" needs a little bit of clarification about the name "Jove." I would say ""Jove," the archaic name of Jupiter, came into use as a poetic name for the planet around the fourteenth century." Mover of molehills (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formation and migration[edit]

  • From reading the text of the given citation, I think that it would be fair to say that Jupiter "is believed to be" instead of "is most likely" the oldest planet in the solar system - this sounds better, anyway. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: I think there should be a comma, not a semicolon, after "snow line." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "It first assembled a solid core before accumulating its gaseous atmosphere" is strange because it makes it seem like it is something the planet actively did, and I think it would be better off combined with the next sentence as well. Could you change these two sentences to "The planet started out as a rocky mass about the size of COMPARABLE OBJECT, and then gradually accumulated a gaseous atmosphere from the Sun's solar nebula"? Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, except I didn't try to further characterize this object. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. Would you mind adding some sort of comma to make this sentence flow better, though? I would suggest "The planet began as a large solid core, and then gradually accumulated its gaseous atmosphere." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if it's necessary to say "Formation models suggest," because formation models are the basis for almost everything in this section. I would change this to "Over about a million years, Jupiter's atmosphere gradually expanded until it had 20 times the mass of the Earth." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The orbiting mass... million years" doesn't make sense to me at all. Could you explain what this is talking about? Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The orbiting mass creates a gap in the disk-shaped solar nebula, slowing the rate of mass accumulation. I tried to reword it. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First sentence of second paragraph: specify that it formed around 3.5 AU from the sun. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point for all the "woulds" in this paragraph, since you are specifying that this is all conditional on the grand tack hypothesis. I would change "would have begun to form" to "began to form". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move reference 28 to where reference 29 is so it doesn't break up the text. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "what are believed to be super-Earths orbiting closer to the Sun" to "several super-Earth planets orbiting close to the Sun" for clarity. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it reads better if you change "leading to the two planets becoming locked" to "until the two planets became locked". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would condense "This, in turn, would have changed the direction of migration" to "This would have changed the direction of migration for both planets." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "These migrations... likely figure" is longer than it needs to be right now. I would simplify it to "All of this happened over a period of 3-6 million years, with the final migration of Jupiter occurring over about 800,000 years." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the last sentence of this paragraph to: "Jupiter's departure from the inner solar system eventually allowed the inner planets to form, including Earth. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, although I retained 'rubble' to connect with the previous breakup of the super earths. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: change "some problems" to "several problems." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would switch "with the measured terrestrial composition" to "with their measured chemical composition". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Some models predict... modern epoch" is confusing, and I'm not sure that it connects very well with the rest of the paragraph. Do you think you could just take it out? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I retained it because it presents a significant problem with the grand tack hypothesis. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "Other models have Jupiter forming" to "Competing models of Solar System formation predict Jupiter forming" - it's a little bit brusque as is. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Physical characteristics[edit]

  • When making any comparison with earth, I suggest: instead of "xx.xxx of earths" is changed to "xx.xxx earths". We clearly understand that these are comparisons to the specifications of earth.--Thatrick (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "composition" subsection, I would take out the clause "with the remaining one present consisting of other elements" since it is redundant with what comes next. Then, I would change the next sentence into "The remaining one percent of the atmosphere contains..." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well not really; the 1% mass isn't mentioned in the succeeding sentences, and some of those are hydrogen compounds. Praemonitus (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Maybe it would connect better to the next sentence if you just said "compounds and elements" instead of "elements" - I'm assuming that the trace compounds you mention are part of that 1% as well. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, many of the compounds are a mix of hydrogen and other elements. Water, for example. Praemonitus (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to say "The outermost layer of the atmosphere... frozen ammonia"? It seems like you already mention ammonia in the upper atmosphere earlier on. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The distinction is that it's frozen (and thus visible). It's kind of a lead-in to the atmosphere section. Praemonitus (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of this subsection could also use a rephrase. I would say "These planets are known as ice giants, because the majority of their volatile compounds are in solid form." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very small point, but I like the title of the next section better as "Size and mass". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can just say "so massive" instead of "this is so massive". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "Its volume is that of 3,321 Earths, but it is only 318 times as massive" to "It has 1,321 times the volume of the Earth, but only 318 times the mass." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: change "so the two densities" to "as the two densities". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next paragraph, I would clarify "its radius would shrink" instead of just "it would shrink." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next sentence needs some work to read clearly. I would say "Indeed, if it had 160% of its current mass, the interior would be so compressed that its volume would decrease despite the increasing amount of matter." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two clauses of the sentence "Despite this, Jupiter still radiates... it receives" are essentially the same. I would change it to "Despite this, Jupiter still radiates more heat than it receives from the Sun through the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism." After that, you can get rid of the next sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this one could use one more pass. Here's a suggestion that could maybe keep the information in the sentence while making it more clear: "Jupiter radiates more heat than it receives through solar radiation, due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism within its contracting interior." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first few sentences of the "Internal structure" section, I would change "consisting predominantly" to "made primarily" - it just reads a little bit smoother. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed it to "consisting primarily"; "made" sounds like somebody built it that way. Praemonitus (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "collapsed directly from the gaseous protoplanetary disk" reads a little bit strangely - is this really a "collapse"? I would just say "was formed directly from the gaseous protoplanetary disk". Mover of molehills (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it makes more sense to say that the Juno mission "found" that Jupiter has a diffuse core, instead of "demonstrated." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the finding came from the scientists, while the evidence came from the spacecraft. The wording avoids anthropomorphization. Praemonitus (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, maybe "found" isn't the right word, but "demonstrated" sounds even more active and anthropomorphic. Could you say something like "discovered," or do have another word choice in mind? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, change "a possible cause is" to "this could have been caused by". Mover of molehills (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "heavy elements 7-25 times the mass of Earth" is confusing - do the elements themselves way more than Earth? Instead, I would say "with a total weight of 7-25..." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reworded it for clarity, but avoided the term 'weight' for scientific reasons. Praemonitus (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more clear to say that the core "takes up" 30-50% of the radius, instead of just "is". Mover of molehills (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "Above the layer of metallic hydrogen lies" to "the core is surrounded by" - there is really no "up" if we are talking about a spherical planet. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed "Above" to "Outside". This isn't at the core. Praemonitus (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "only" from the phrase "critical temperature of only 33 K" - it feels like needless editorializing. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also take out the WikiLink to "ocean" in the phrase "ocean of liquid hydrogen" - this links to an article on Earth's ocean. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "Physically, there is no clear boundary" you need to specify what the boundary is between. I would also change "smoothly" to "gradually" for tone. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved the sentence up to the previous paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works. Just make sure you still say "Physically, there is no clear boundary between the two layers". Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't two layers because it's a smooth transition. Praemonitus (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it, and I'm sorry this point is taking so long to resolve. It remains very unclear to me what "boundary" you are talking about, though. I would suggest rephrasing this sentence to remove that clause, or just taking out entirely - you already say that the gas transitions "gradually" in the previous sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I removed the "there is no clear boundary" statement from the sentence. Praemonitus (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first line of the last paragraph here ("The temperature and pressure... steadily inward") feels redundant with the first line of the last paragraph. I feel like you could fix this by changing the sentence to "The temperature and pressure inside Jupiter is at a maximum near its core" since you mostly discuss the core in this section. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. You don't need to say "core", then, but this sentence could still potentially use some work. I would say "The temperature and pressure inside Jupiter is highest near the center of the planet." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but that isn't communicating the same information. It's not a sudden spike at the core. Praemonitus (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "This is observed... escape by convection" feels awkward, and I'm not even sure if it's necessary - you haven't mentioned how any of the other facts about Jupiter were measured because you don't need to. I would suggest rephrasing, or ideally just taking it out. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "At the pressure level of 10 bars... 340 K" confuses me. Are you talking about the outside of Jupiter's atmosphere? If so, it would be good to say this. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed it to say "At a depth where the atmospheric pressure level is 10 bars... 340 K". I hope that is clearer. Praemonitus (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is better, I just feel like it could use one more detail for orientation. Could you say "Near the surface of the planet, where the where the atmospheric pressure is 10 bars" (or feel free to paraphrase this if it not at the surface. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near" is vague, so I changed it to surface depth as a hint. Praemonitus (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "The hydrogen is always supercritical" is confusing because we are talking about a continuum of distance, not time. I would say "All of the hydrogen in Jupiter is supercritical" instead. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, just make sure you fix the typo in the phrase "The region of supercritical hydrogen region". Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word choice: it makes more sense to say "about 5000 K" instead of "perhaps 5000 K." Also, "estimated at around" is redundant, so I would just say "estimated to be." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the beginning of the "atmosphere" section, I would just say "with an altitude of over 5,000 km" instead of "spanning over 5,000 km in altitude." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not clear how that is an improvement; it seems more ambiguous. Praemonitus (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, I would change "Jupiter is perpetually covered with clouds... hydrosulfide" to "Jupiter is covered with clouds of crystallized ammonia, which may contain ammonium hydrosulfide as well." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "The clouds are in the tropopause" if they cover the entire planet? If you mean to talk about specifically the clouds in the tropopause, I would suggest the following edit for clarity: "The clouds in the tropopause are divided into bands at different latitudes, including lighter-hued zones and darker belts." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this definitely makes it more understandable. For flow, though, I think that these two sentences should be integrated: "The clouds are located in the tropopause layer of Jupiter's atmosphere, former bands at different latitudes which are subdivided into lighter-hued zones and darker belts." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: "sufficiently stable" sounds better as "stable enough." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "There may also be a thin layer... ammonia layer" and the two that come after that feel a little bit choppy right now - I feel like they could be combined into two sentences. Here is my idea: "Scientists have detected flashes of lightning in Jupiter's atmosphere, some of which are a thousand times as powerful as lightning on Earth. This hints that there may be a thin layer of water vapor underlying the ammonia layer of Jupiter's atmosphere." (Note "water vapor" instead of "water clouds" - I just think this sounds better) Mover of molehills (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay - to me, I guess, it just feels backwards to discuss the cause of the lightning first and then the lightning itself. Do you the revision of the sentence that I suggested would work, or do you have other ideas? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not following your reasoning here. Talking about water clouds first provides a context for the lightning; they don't occur in the ammonia clouds. Praemonitus (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logic still feels a bit backwards to me, but it's not that important - I can let it sit for now. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change the caption of the picture "South polar view of Jupiter" to "view of Jupiter's south pole." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second-to-last paragraph, instead of saying the substances "are thought to be phosphorus, sulfur...", could you say "are thought to be made up of phosphorus..." to account for the possibility that they could be a mixture of things? Mover of molehills (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "warmer lower deck of clouds" to "warmer cloud deck below them." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lower deck is a reference to the second paragraph. I think it's clearer this way. Praemonitus (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. I think I'm just snagging on the phrase "warmer lower" - could you just say "warm lower deck of clouds"? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a relative warmth, so 'warmer' seems more appropriate. I reworded it to "mix with the warmer clouds of the lower deck". Praemonitus (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add "light-colored" to the word zones when you say "The zones are formed when rising convection..." I know that you already defined what zones are, but it's too vague a term to use on its own. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be okay to change "masks out these lower clouds from view" to "hides the chromophores from view"? If it's still accurate, I feel like it reads better. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "the oval object rotates counterclockwise", I feel like all three of the WikiLinks are unnecessary - I can't imagine a situation in which a reader would really be interested in defining what these things are. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "robust candidate to explain the coloration" is a bit awkward. Could you just say "one likely cause"? Mover of molehills (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can just say that the Juno mention "measured" the depth of the Great Red Spot - it feels unecessary to say "utilized two scientific instruments to measure." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Interaction between charged particles... the Spot" feels backwards in its delivery. I would say "Scientists believe that the Great Cold Spot is generated by interactions between charged particles from Io and the planet's strong magnetic field." Mover of molehills (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks good, just clarify "Jupiter's strong magnetic field" instead of "the planet's strong magnetic field." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to "the strong magnetic field of Jupiter" to avoid possible ambiguity. Praemonitus (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence at the beginning of the "Magnetosphere" section is currently something of a run-on. Could you just say "Jupiter's magnetic field is the strongest of any planet in the Solar System, ranging from 4.2 gauss (0.42 mT) at the equator to 10-14 gauss (1.0-1.4 mT) at the poles. Mover of molehills (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "except for sunspots" clause just feels unnecessary to me if you are talking about planets, and it breaks up the flow of the sentence. Do you think we would lose anything if we said "strongest of any planet in the solar system" instead? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For simplicity, I would change "generate a strong radio signature that produces bursts" to "produce bursts of radio waves". Mover of molehills (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of this section, I feel like "solar radio output" would be clearer as "radio output of the Sun". Mover of molehills (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parenthetical phrase "about 5.2 times the average distance between Earth and the Sun", is unnecessary, because readers can look up what an AU is if they are curious. I would just say "(5.2 AU)". Mover of molehills (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole section "The rotation of Jupiter's polar atmosphere... its period is Jupiter's official rotation" feel really clunky right now. I would condense it as follows (not mentioning the numbers of the systems): "The latitudes from 10 N to 10 S of Jupiter's atmosphere rotate the fastest, with a period of 9 h 55 m 60.6 s, while the latitudes north and south of these rotate with a period of 9 h 55 m 40.6 s". Meanwhile, radio astronomers have found that Jupiter's magnetosphere rotates with period INSERT NUMBER; this period is used as Jupiter's official rotation." Mover of molehills (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reluctant to do that as it removes historical information. Instead I made some modifications for clarity. Sorry. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, I understand why you don't want to lose the history here. Maybe we could get the best of both worlds by breaking it up into a bulleted list (with bullets of the form "System I applies to latitudes from 10 N to 10 S. It's period is..." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Jupiter is usually... brighter than Jupiter" feels awkward, especially since you talked about Jupiter's relative brightness in the night sky in the lead. I would change it to "Jupiter is the usually the third brightest object in the sky (after the Moon and Venus), although at opposition Mars can be brighter than Jupiter." Mover of molehills (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all the comments I have for the "Physical characteristics" section - the rest of the section is very strong! Mover of molehills (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • The phrase "based on its approximate number of years" confuses me a bit. Could you change it to "based on the approximate number of years it takes Jupiter to rotate around the Sun"? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity and sentence flow: change "with each year associated with a Tai Sui star and god" to "and each year became associated with a Tai Sui star and a god". Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "these beliefs survive... before Buddha" should be its own sentence, instead of being connected to the previous one with a semicolon. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel like the phrase "now often popularly assumed to be related to the arrival of the animals before Buddha" is necessary, and it's also not very clear. Do you think it could just be taken out? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As great as Galileo was, using "polymath" to describe him feels like needless editorializing. Could you just say "Italian astronomer"? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but I'll have to disagree. That's like describing Isaac Newton as an astronomer. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should say "this is thought to be the first telescopic observation," not just "thought to be." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say "Just one day after Galileo" instead of "one day after Galileo" to emphasize how surprising this is. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, I would change "celestial motion not apprently centred on the Earth" to "celestial bodies which did not appear to rotate around the Earth." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's helpful, but "celestial motion that did not appear to rotate" is confusing because it makes it sound like the motion is rotating. Could you change "celestial motion" to "a celestial body"? Mover of molehills (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "During the 1660s... rotation period" is lacking some clarity right now. I would change it to "During the 1660s, Giovanni Cassini used a new telescope to discover spots and colorful bands in Jupiter's atmosphere, observe that the planet appeared oblate, and estimate its rotation period." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next sentence, there should be a comma after "In 1692". Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "allowing predictions of" sounds better as "and used them to predict". Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reworded it slightly, since the tables could also be used by others. Praemonitus (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of just saying "It was observed that when Jupiter was on the opposite side of the Sun from Earth...", could you clarify who observed it? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would WikiLink the phrase "absorption bands". Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, I would change "termed white ovals" to "called "white ovals"". Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text reads better if you change "and they used this information to refine the rotation rate" to "and they used this information to determine a more precise value for Jupiter's rotation rate." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Scientists discovered that there are three" sounds better as "Scientists have discovered three". Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be incorrect to change "Decametric radio bursts" to "Decametric radio emissions" for consistency with the next bullet point? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No not really. You can have emissions without it being bursty. Praemonitus (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the sentence "The origin of this signal was a torus-shaped belt around Jupiter's equator" is unnecessary, because you more precisely describe the cause of this radiation in the next sentence. Could you just take this out? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more concise this way. The first provides a location within the magnetosphere and the second gives the mechanism. Praemonitus (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can keep the wording as is, but do you think you could maybe combine the two sentences? For example, "The origin of this signal was a torus-shaped belt around Jupiter's equator, which generates cyclotron radiation..." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration[edit]

  • The first entence of this section doesn't feel like a great summary of what comes next. I would rephrase it as "Jupiter has been visited by automated spacecraft since 1973, when the space probe Pioneer 10 passed within 130,000 km of its surface." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next few sentences of this paragraph feel confusing and unnecessary to me - it feels like you're basically just defining what an escape velocity is, which doesn't make since for a section that it specifically about exploring Jupiter. I would fix this as follows (although if you have other ideas, feel free to tinker): first, delete the sentence "Flights to planets... delta-v." Then, change the next sentence to "Reaching Jupiter from low Earth orbit requires an escape velocity of 6.7 km/s, which is comparable to the escape velocity of 9.7 km/s needed to reach low Earth orbit in the first place." Then, the next sentence would just sound better as "Gravitational assists from other planets can be used to reduce the energy required to reach Jupiter, although this can significantly extend the duration of the flight." Let me know if these changes work for you, or if there is anything that is not accurate. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it's not defining escape velocity. It's explaining what energy is expended to reach Jupiter from Earth orbit, which is relevant to the topic of exploring the planet with spacecraft. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. It just feels off-topic to abruptly stop talking about Jupiter and explain what a delta-v is instead. I think you could fix this by just taking out the information about delta-v entirely and linking to the article for readers who are interested. To do this, I would take out the sentence "Flights to planets... delta-v" and then wikilink "delta-v" in the next sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the second sentence specifically about Jupiter. Praemonitus (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "better measurements of Jupiter's diameter and the amount of polar flattening" sounds better as "better measurements of Jupiter's diameter and oblate shape." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the current wording is clearer, so I'm not sure I follow your logic. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay - it's something of a personal preference, so I don't feel a need to press the point. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would use "Spot" instead of "Red Spot" as a shorthand way to refer to the GRS - this is how you have been doing it in the past." 21:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The two ideas in the sentence "A torus of ionised atoms... erupting" feel disjoint right now. I would connect them by changing the second clause to "along Io's orbital path, which were found to come from erupting volcanoes on the moon's surface." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "night side atmosphere" to "atmosphere on the unlit side." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The unlit side can still be illuminated by reflected light, so night side seems less ambiguous. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but could you at least link to the article terminator?
  • I would fold the sentence "Ulysses had no cameras so no images were taken" into the previous sentence, by turning the previous sentence into "During this pass, the spacecraft studied Jupiter's magnetosphere, although it had no cameras to photograph the planet." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "A second flyby six years later was at a much greater distance" comes across as kind of choppy to me. I would say "The spacecraft passed by Jupiter again six years later, this time at a much greater distance." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, except I left off the redundant word 'again'. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You repeat the word "orbit" a lot at the beginning of the the "Galileo mission" section. To avoid redundancy, I would change "it entered orbit on December 7, 1995" to "it arrived at the planet on December 7, 1995", and then change "it orbited" the planet to just "it orbited" in the next sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change the sentence "The spacecraft also witnessed the impact... vantage point for the event" to "The spacecraft also witnessed the impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 when it collided with Jupiter in 1994" - I think that the "unique vantage point" clause isn't necessary. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, I would change the clause "Its originally designed capacity... antenna" to "Some of the goals for the mission were thwarted due to a malfunction in Galileo's high-gain antenna" Mover of molehills (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of this section makes me confused about the overall timeline. You say that the titanium probe entered the atmosphere in July 1995, but this is months before Galileo arrived in the first place. Could you explain what's going on? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the issue. I'm not clear on what the distinction is between the probe and the spacecraft here - do they have different names? I think this paragraph definitely needs more specificity. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only designation it had was the "Galileo probe". But "340-kilogram titanium atmospheric probe" seems specific. Praemonitus (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. There is still some confusion here, though, because you say "the first spacecraft to orbit Jupiter was the Galileo probe", but then you make the spacecraft and probe sound like different entities when you say that the spacecraft dropped the probe into the atmosphere. Mover of molehills (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the first 'probe' usage to 'mission'. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article goes into a little bit too much detail about the destruction of the spacecraft. I would change everything from "before the signal was lost...possibly vapourized" to "before the spacecraft was destroyed." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the sentence "The Galileo orbiter... harbor life" should be split in two - it's kind of a run-on right now. My suggestion would be to create two sentences as follows: "The Galileo orbiter experienced a more rapid verson of the same fate when it waws deliberately steered into the planet on September 21, 2003. NASA destroyed the spacecraft in order to avoid any possiblity of the spacecraft crashing into and possibly contaminating the moon Europa, which may harbor life." Mover of molehills (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend reordering the information delivery at the beginning of the "Juno mission" section. Specifically, I would change "and was expected to complete thirty-seven orbits over the next twenty months" to "and was expected to study the planet in detail from a polar orbit", and then change the next sentence to "The spacecraft was originally intended to orbit Jupiter thirty-seven times over a period of twenty months." Mover of molehills (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of clarity and flow, I would change "may cause future failure... Jupiter's moons" to "puts it at risk of malfunctioning and crashing into one of Jupiter's moons." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are separate issues but your suggested rewrite appears to connect the two. Instead I separated it into two sentences and moved one to the first paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the "Canceled missions and future plans" section is worded a bit weirdly. I would say "There has been great interest in studying the icy moons Europa, Ganymede and Callisto in detail, because of the possibility of liquid oceans below their surface." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trimmed it down since the moons are covered in more detail later. Praemonitus (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This format is good - I just think it reads better if you say "There has been great interest in studying," as you had it before, rather than "There is great interest in missions to study". Mover of molehills (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences "Funding difficulties have delayed progress" and the one after it should probably be combined. I would say "Funding difficulties have delayed progress, causing NASA's JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) to be cancelled in 2005." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: change "had formally ended the partnership by" to "formally ended the partnership in." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity of tenses, change "These plans were realized" to "These plans have been realized". Mover of molehills (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "assist them out to the edges of the heliosphere" reads better as "help them reach the edges of the heliosphere." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moons[edit]

  • For simplicity, I would just chang[e] "three of them (Io, Europa and Ganymede)" to "Io, Europa and Ganymede". Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the sentence "The eccentricity... three moons' shapes" would sound better as "The eccentric orbits of these three moons causes regular flexing of their shapes." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "This tidal flexing heats... friction" to "The friction created by this tidal flexing generates heat within the moons' interiors." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tidal of the table about the moons is "The Galilean moons, compared to Earth's Moon", but it doesn't contain any information about Earth's moon. Could you retitle it? Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The '%' are relative to the Moon, but I'll clarify that. Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can just say "groups of four based on their orbital elements" instead of "groups of four, based on commonality of their orbital elements." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to say "Irregular moons that belong to a group share similar orbital elements," since this is redundant from earlier. I would change this sentence to "The irregular moons within each group may have a common origin, perhaps as a larger moon or captured body that broke up" instead." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "rings" section, I would change "rather than ice as with Saturn's rings" to "while Saturn's rings are made of ice" for flow. Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: "most likely made out of" sounds more academic than "probably made out of." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Material that would normally fall... influence" feels awkward and more long-winded than it needs to be. I would combine these sentences with the one before them like this: "The main ring is most likely made out of material ejected from the satelli[t]es [A]drastea and Metis, which is drawn into Jupiter because of the planet's strong gravitational influence." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly to before, I think "probably produce" would sound better as "are believed to produce." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of this section needs something of a rephrase. I would propose: "There is evidence that debris from Amalthea may create a fourth "rocky ring" around Jupiter as well." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree that your proposal is better than the original. In my mind it needs to separate the existence of the structure from the possible explanation. Praemonitus (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine - what I'm really snagging on is what feels like a vague pronoun reference with "that moon." Could you say something like "There is evidence of a rocky ring strung around Jupiter as well, which may consist of collisional debris from Amalthea?" Or any other rephrase you can think of which makes the pronouns clearer... Mover of molehills (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proposed rewrite is not communicating the key fact that the debris lies along the orbit of Amalthea. I changed 'that moon' to 'the same moon'. Will that work? Praemonitus (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is an improvement, but I'm willing to just leave it at "that moon" for now. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with the Solar System[edit]

  • The clause "Along with the Sun" feels pretty unnecessary, because it is obvious that the Sun has had a huge impact on the Solar system. I would say "As the largest of the eight planets, the gravitational influence of Jupiter has helped shape the Solar System" instead. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information delivery in the sentence "The orbits of most... orbital tilt" feels confusing to me. I would condense it by saying "All of the planets except for Mercury lie closer to Jupiter's orbital plane than the Sun's equatorial plane, due to INSERT REASON" (this also allows for an explanation of why this phenomenon happens, which is missing right now. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded. Perhaps the reason is in the previous sentence? Praemonitus (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: "Late Heavy Bombardment event" could just be "Late Heavy Bombardment" - it's already a noun. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, I would change "into the regions o[f] the Lagrangian points preceding and following" to "around the Lagrangian points which precede and follow". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say "in honor of the Iliad instead of "to commemorate the Iliad" - I don't see it as being that directed of a decision. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Most short-period comets... smaller than Jupiter's" is not worded very clearly. I would change it to "Most short-period comets (comets with semi-major axes smaller than Jupiter's) belong to the Jupiter family. Then, to avoid redundancy, make the next sentence start with "These comets" instead of "Jupiter family comets". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No that's backwards. The Jupiter family is defined by the semi-major axis of the comets being smaller than Jupiter's. Most short-period comets belong to this family. I tried a rewrite. Praemonitus (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a comma between "with Jupiter" and "their orbits". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "orbits are perturbed into a smaller period" is confusing, because it makes it sound like the orbit is turning into a period. I would rephrase this, one idea being: "During close encounters with Jupiter, their orbits are perturbed by the planet's strong gravitational influence, and then circularised again when Jupiter moves farther away." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Due to the magnitude... this is true" should just be deleted - the article has mentioned this twice already. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: change "the Solar System's other planets" to "any other planet in the Solar System" for flow. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be specific, I would change "It was thought" to "up until recently, scientists believed". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just delete the sentence "Jupiter experiences about 200... Earth". It's an interesting factoid, but you have already mentioned the large volume of impacts that Jupiter receives and this isn't the right place to go on about it. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved the sentence up to the previous discussions as I think it provides a useful scale. Praemonitus (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a comma between "1994" and "the Comet". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A wide range of observatories" can just be "observatories". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that "Hubble Space Telescope" and "Galilio probe" should be "The Hubble Space Telescope and the Galilio Probe" (by the way, is "Galilio probe" a typo)? Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For flow, I would change "The event was widely covered by media" to "The event was also widely covered by the media." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • An 'also' here would be redundant wording. I changed the earlier 'event' to 'impacts' so it seems less repetitive. Praemonitus (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "candidate sites as potential impact observations" feels clunky to me. Could you just say "examples of potential impact observations", and then change "candidate sites" to "observations" in the next sentence? Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology[edit]

  • First of all, I feel like the name of this section would sound better as "In mythology". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed it to 'In culture' for consistency with other planet articles. Praemonitus (talk)
  • For clarity, change "to the Babylonians, this object" to "to the Babylonians, the planet". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "The Greek god from the Homeric period"? Isn't there more than one Greek god? Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed 'god' to 'myths of Zeus' for clarity. Hopefully that is an improvement. Praemonitus (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The Roman counterpart to Zeus is Jupiter" and the one after it don't read very well right now. I would change them to "The god Jupiter is the Roman counterpart of Zeus. The Romans originally called Jupiter "the star of Jupiter," as they believed it to be sacred to its namesake god." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you see a good reason to keep it, I would just take out the part about the proto-Indo-European roots of "Jupiter." It doesn't seem relevant in a section that is specifically about Jupiter in mythology. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I usually just leave the etymology information in place as it seems of high importance to some editors. Praemonitus (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that the whole paragraph "The original Greek deity... Jovis belongs in the "Name and symbol" section - it certainly isn't about mythology. I would just move this paragraph over, taking out the last sentence because it is redundant with what you already have there. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the phrase "These people calculated," you need to clarify who "These people" are. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just take out the line "There are many theories about the meaning of eren." It doesn't feel relevant to this section of the article, and if you do want to leave it in you have to describe what these theories are." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the article is kind of a run-on. I would add a period after "(with corrections)" and change "and thus in some writings" to "In some ancient Chinese writings". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Praemonitus: That's it! I have finally reached the end of the article, and one we resolve all of the comments and conversations above I will be ready to approve the article on this count. I understand that I have given you a truly massive volume of edits to work with, but I appreciate your patience and diligence - it's going to be a GA soon! Mover of molehills (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phew, that was a lot of revisions. Thank you for being so thorough. Praemonitus (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable[edit]

@Praemonitus: this is the last section of the review. I expect that it might take me quite some time because this article has so many citations, but once I finish it we will be all done. Any sentences that need paraphrasing or factual innacuracies will appear below. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The values for the aphelion, perihelion and semi-major axis of Jupiter are incorrectly listed in Gm when they should be in Mm. Also, the values you give for these measurements are very slightly off from the values given by NASA - check these against the fact sheet. Mover of molehills (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The unit is valid: 106 km is a Gm. Otherwise the convert template would give incorrect values for the AU. The data changes over time, so they were correct as of the reference date listed. I updated the data to match the current values in the table. Praemonitus (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another typo: the rotation period given in the source is 10,476.8, not 10,475.8. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there might be an extraneous space in the infobox when it says the flattening is equal to "0.064 87". Mover of molehills (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's per standard ISU notation: placing a space gap after every third digit. I'm not particularly fond of it because it can cause confusion, but the notation is valid. I suppose it should be consistent though, so I'll remove it. Praemonitus (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a citation for the claim that Jupiter's max surface temperature at 1 bar is 1000 K. Do you mind pointing me to that? Mover of molehills (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a ref, although the pressure level is unclear and so I'm tempted to remove it. Praemonitus (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that might be a good idea, unless you can find a better ref - its strange right now because some of the data is missing. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "As a consequence, the core must have formed before the solar nebula began to dissipate after 10 million years" feels uncomfortably close to the sentence in the source text. I would give it a better paraphrase, or just take it out - it feels like a line that's more relevant in the article you're citing than in a section specifically on the dynamics of Jupiter's formation. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "locked into a 3:2 mean motion resonance" is taken directly from the source. I would change this to something like "fell into a 3:2 orbital resonance," or any other paraphrase you can think of. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see evidence for the phrase "with the final migration of Jupiter occurring over about 800,000" years - in fact, as far as I can tell the source says "105 years". Mover of molehills (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As near as I can tell this data came from the graph in Figure 2, by adding the 300 to the 500 Kyr block. However, I'm not quite clear whether that is a correct interpretation. In fact I'd speculate the chart shows it running from '300 Kyr' to 'asteroids: 600 Kyr', for a total of 300 Kyr. It might be better to just say 'several hundred thousand years'. I revised it accordingly; this is just a simulation so it probably is in a range of that scale. Praemonitus (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm missing something, it seems like the phrase "The likelihood that the outward migration actually occurred in the solar nebula is very low" is a little bit stronger than what the source claims, since there is still a lot of uncertainty in the modeling they are doing. Could you change this to "Additionally, it is likely that Jupiter would have settled into an orbit much closer to the Sun if it had migrated through the solar nebula"? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the phrase "current epoch" feels unnecessary and redundant with the source. Could you say "close to those of the planet today" instead? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "This inward migration would have occurred over a roughly 700,000-year time period,[37][38] during an epoch approximately 2–3 million years after the planet began to form" feels redundant with the timeline you gave at the end of the second paragraph, but with slightly different numbers. Could you standardize these or delete one of them? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This follows the sentence "Based on Jupiter's composition..." and hence is a different starting condition and model. To make it clearer, I separated out the relevant content into a new paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, the phrase "Saturn would also have migrated inwards" is redundant with what you have earlier - and I'm not sure if the sentence it's in is even relevant to this section. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a different model than the Nice model, so it's not redundant. Praemonitus (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Just you clarify, could you say "In this model, Saturn would have migrated inwards..." Mover of molehills (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 41 does not mention "Jupiter" or "simple syrup" - I think it might be a mistake. Mover of molehills (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Syrup USP is "simple syrup", consisting only of sucrose and water, with a density of 1.31 g·cm3 per the source. Allen (2000) is the source for Jupiter's density. I added a couple of notes for clarity. Praemonitus (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure there's evidence for the claim "Since helium atoms are more massive than hydrogen molecules, Jupiter's atmosphere is approximately 75% hydrogen and 24% helium by mass" in source 44. Could you point me to it if there is? Mover of molehills (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I did was focus the sentence on the mass fraction of helium, as measured by the Galileo atmospheric probe. It is cited. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "Helium is also depleted" feels like an unnecessary repetition of the source's word choice. I would say "The atmosphere also contains 20% less helium than the Sun." Mover of molehills (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the first use of 'depleted' to 'reduced'. Praemonitus (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "the next most abundant elements, including oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur" also feels too close the source. Could you say something like "other common elements like oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and sulfur"? Mover of molehills (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From looking at the source, the sentence "Theoretical models indicate... increasing amount of matter" might be a little bit misleading. I am looking at the part in the source where it says "For large masses, Mp ≫ 500M⊕, the compression in the interior is high enough to pressure ionize the atoms. At these large masses degeneracy pressure of free electrons balances gravity in hydrostatic equilibrium, and as more mass is added to the planet, the planet shrinks". Because Jupiter is less than 500 Earth masses, this makes it seem like it would actually grow at first, and then start to shrink once it reached 160% of its current mass. Do you mind rephrasing the text to accommodate this? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I re-sequenced the sentences and changed one to make it clearer. I didn't think it would help to delve into that cube root equation. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link in ref 58 is broken. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ref numbering may have changed during editing. I'm not finding a broken link. Could you point out which one you mean? Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number changed again. Is this the "Interiors of giant planets inside and outside the solar system" reference? I'm at least able to access the source web pages, and I just added a link to a copy. Praemonitus (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the link works now. Unfortunately, I don't see a citation for the claim that high-mass brown dwarfs have about 50 Jupiter masses - do you mind pointing me to that? Mover of molehills (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correct value of 75 Jupiter masses is in the reference. I'm not sure why it said 50; perhaps an edit error in the past? I consolidated some redundant text and re-arranged the paragraph so that the statement is correct. Praemonitus (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point me to the part in the text where it mentions "the smallest red dwarf"? Sadly, my go-to find+replace function does not work on this document, and from scanning over it I didn't see it talk about anything except brown dwarfs. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could not confirm the statement, so I moved it to the talk page. Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • After some investigation, I modified the statement using more recent references. Praemonitus (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 61 mentions that Jupiter radiates more heat than it receives, but it doesn't mention the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism. Could you find another source that supports this? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit of a nitpick, but in order to increase distance from the source I would change "have no core at all" to "completely lack a core." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed: you should WikiLink "convection" in the phrase "the heat of planetary formation can only escape by convection." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see evidence for the phrase "where the temperature is about 5,000 K", or for the sentence "The temperature... 4,500 GPa" in source 81. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what happened there, but I'll need to investigate. Praemonitus (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point me to the line where it says that Jupiter's atmosphere if 5,000 km deep? I looked around and got smaller answers from different sources. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewritten. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Great, thanks for the revision. Can you still say that the atmosphere is the deepest in the Solar System, or is that not true? Mover of molehills (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't really know. It's possible that the physics of a lower gravity giant planet may allow a deeper atmosphere, but I'd just be speculating. Praemonitus (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any mentions of ammonium hydrosulfide or its chemical formula in the doc you cite. It seems like they talk about ammonia and hydrogen sulfide separately, not part of one compound. Am I missing something? Mover of molehills (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a ref. to confirm the ammonium hydrosulfide. Praemonitus (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 85 doesn't seem to support the statement "The cloud layer... lower deck" nor does it suggest that lightning strikes are evidence of clouds of water vapor. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, I mean the reference right after "These electrical discharges can be up to a thousand times as powerful as lightning on Earth." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might have been a case where the following ref supported the statement, but a new statement was subsequently inserted. I added a ref. Praemonitus (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the ref that comes after "driven by the heat rising from the interior." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the vendor has cut access. I added a new link that at least points to the first part of the article. Praemonitus (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the one right after "The maximum altitude of this storm is about 8 km (5 mi) above the surrounding cloudtops." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google book link? I'm able to access it. If you still can't, are you able to download from this page? Praemonitus (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see evidence for the phrase "these three smaller white ovals were first observed in 1938." Mover of molehills (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the paragraph with a new reference. Praemonitus (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 92 does not mention the strength of Jupiter's magnetic field in Gauss. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the reference from the magnetosphere article and updated the wording to match. Praemonitus (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great! I would just add that you should say " 2 Gauss", "20 Gauss" instead of just "2 G" and "20 G", for the sake of clarituy. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant information from source 61 at the end of the first paragraph of the "Magnetosphere" section is found around pages 32-34, not page 69. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one comes after "the radio emissions from Jupiter can exceed the radio output of the Sun." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may be looking at the first revision of the book. I updated it to use the revised edition when adding pages to address a page-needed tag (before this review began). Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first of the two references that comes after "with consumer-grade shortwave radio receivers." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very small nitpick: the orbital inclination of Jupiter relative to the Earth rounds to 1.30, not 1.31, and the eccentricity rounds to 0.049. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 123 is lacking a page number in both instances it is used, which makes it hard to verify. I would add a page number or just find a more easily accessible source. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the source whose second usage comes after "its period is Jupiter's official rotation." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to the reference, so I added new ones. Praemonitus (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see justification for the phrase "On Jupiter, the equatorial diameter is 9,275 km (5,763 mi) longer than the polar diameter." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I inserted a more appropriate reference and changed the diameter to be double the difference. Praemonitus (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uses c and d of reference 12 can just be combined into 1 at the end of that sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Jupiter's angular diameter is 30.5 to 40.1, not 29.8 to 50.1. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source lists a range of 30.5 to 50.1 seconds of arc in the "Jupiter Observational Parameters" section, so I revised the statement accordingly. Praemonitus (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly - the 40.1 was a typo on my part, sorry. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "the phase angle as viewed from Earth never exceeds 11.5" is just a little bit too close to the source for my liking. I would say "the phase angle as viewed from Earth is always less than 11.5." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you preface the fact about Gan De with "Chinese historian Xi Zezong has claimed" - the book you link is written by David Seargent. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see evidence for the phrase "These findings were the first discovery of motion of celestial bodies that did not appear to rotate around the Earth". Mover of molehills (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "It was the last planetary moon to be discovered directly by visual observation" is a bit too close to the source. I would say something like "It was the last planetary moon to be discovered with the naked eye." Mover of molehills (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that would be false. It was discovered by visual observation with a telescope, rather than by using photography, &c. I tried to modify it a little. Praemonitus (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "In 1955... 22.2 MHz" is a little bit too close to the source. I would say something like "In 1955, Bernard Burke and Kenneth Franklin discovered that Jupiter emits periodic bursts of radio waves at a frequency of 22.2 MHz." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page number for source 156 is 116, not 150. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the one after "Jupiter from low Earth orbit requires a delta-v of 6.3 km/s." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to this source so I can't check. Are you comparing against the same (3rd) edition? Praemonitus (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think I might have confused this with another source, since I don't have access to this one either. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I see evidence for the phrase "at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 164 does not mention the spacecraft observing Himalia or Elara. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see evidence for the claim that Juno arrived at Jupiter on July 4, 2016. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may have been in the NYT reference that follows, but it is pay-walled so I can't confirm that. What I did was move the first reference down a sentence and added a third, accessible article.Praemonitus (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just reviewing the tenses in accordance with the cited article, I would change "Juno would complete" to "Juno was supposed to complete" for clarity. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no references in the last paragraph of the "Cancelled missions and future plans" section. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see evidence for the phrase "The Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt are mostly caused by Jupiter". Mover of molehills (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source you list to support Jupiter being called "the Solar System's vacuum cleaner" describes a specific asteroid being like a vacuum cleaner, not Jupiter. Mover of molehills (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "It was later determined... proposed impacts" is not supported by source 211 - it seems to be something discovered later. Mover of molehills (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the source after "these observations had little or no possibility of being the results of the proposed impacts." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph appears to be validated by the reference, so I don't understand your objection. Praemonitus (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, most of the paragraph is. The only problem is the part where it says that this survey was invalidated later, because the article you link is the survey itself - and clearly, this survey did not invalidate itself. Am I missing something? Mover of molehills (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. I modified the paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are my last comments of the article! Once you finish responding to everything above, I will be ready to promote it. Mover of molehills (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mover of molehills: I'm having a bit of trouble with your reference numbering since these change as new ones are added. It would have been useful to, say, list the reference title. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it, thanks for letting me know. I have tried to add more specificity throughout my comments. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broad[edit]

After comparing this article to the featured articles about the other planets, this section of the review is a pass. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Automatic pass, this isn't an article where we need to worry about neutrality. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stable[edit]

It looks like this is true from reading the revision history. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated[edit]

Yes, this section is great as well! There are a lot of really high-quality Jupiter graphics to choose from here, and I feel like you have made a good selection. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Praemonitus: Just a courtesy ping that the article review has begun. I reccommend following along with the comments as they come as much as you can, because there will be a lot of them by the time the review is done. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

  • Promoted. Thank you for bearing with me throughout what I know has been a long and difficult GA review - I think that this article is better off for it. I hope that you will keep this article on track to FA status, since I believe it's one of the last Solar System-related articles that isn't already an FA. Congratulations and keep up the great work! Mover of molehills (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jupiter/GA1&oldid=1161448539"