Talk:Jupiter/Archive 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Interior structure needs rewrite - Juno data and diffuse core

It's been two years since the Juno mission made its discoveries about the diffuse core. I did a hack job of updating this section, but it really needs to be rewritten by someone who knows their stuff. It's not worthy of an FA as it was and now is. — kwami (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comparing Jupiter interior structure models to Juno gravity measurements and the role of a dilute core may be the JUNO results (from first two perijoves) analysis suggesting, or consistent with, a diffuse core. It says "Our models suggest that a dilute core, expanded through a region 0.3–0.5 times the planet's radius is helpful for fitting the observed J n ." A Nature article Jupiter’s secrets revealed by NASA probe May 2017 reports this as "The core could be both larger and more diffuse than expected, extending out to as much as half of Jupiter’s 70,000-kilometre radius." Seems to justify a note about a suggestion rather than a rewrite. Could look for a secondary source based on an analysis of more JUNO passes. - Rod57 (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Has this been addressed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

FA criteria

The article is tagged as needing update, does it still meet FA criteria? I also see MOS issues such as massive image sandwiching. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this article for WP:URFA/2020 and also for a potential TFA on 2020-12-21:

  • There is an update tag on the "Internal structure" section
  • There is an update tag on the "Juno mission" section
  • Tagged dated: The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K (35,700 °C; 64,300 °F) and the interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa.[49][These estimates are out of date]
  • Has the issue in the section just above this one been resolved?
  • There are MOS:SANDWICH and image layout problems everywhere. If knowledgeable editors will delete those that are least useful (decorative), I am willing to go through and improve the layout. There are considerable images here that are not aiding our understanding of the topic; by reducing those, we can get a better layout on the ones that stay.
  • There are considerable duplicate links. See WP:OVERLINK, but some may be deemed necessary and retained (editor discretion). Installing this script will add an item to your toolbox that shows duplicate links in red: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
  • External links probably could benefit from a trim, per WP:ELNO. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, meaning there should be little in EL that can't be covered in the article. Ditto for Further reading ... are they all necessary? Do they add something to the article that we can't cover in a comprehensive article?
  • Does See also need trimming? That is, why aren't those worked in to the article (in instances where they can be)?
  • The "Impacts" section has a plethora of issues. WP:PROSELINE (rewrite it as prose), and MOS:CURRENT. WP:TRIVIA ???
  • It is easy to spot sporadic, uncited text. Samples in the "Moons" and "Interaction with the Solar System" sections. The entire article should be scanned for uncited or outdated text.
  • The "Mythology" section looks like a collection of stuffy, one-sentence paragraph trivia; should be rationalized to paragraphs.
  • Keep an eye out for WP:CITATION OVERKILL and remove the unnecessary, sample, Interactions between charged particles generated from Io and the planet's strong magnetic field likely resulted in redistribution of heat flow, forming the Spot.[87][88][89][90]

Done for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Should Jumping-Jupiter scenario be linked from this article?

It seems to have been linked in the past but demoted to a hidden comment as it lacked a citation. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Abundances of heavier inert gases in Jupiter's atmosphere?

Article has hidden comment "Abundances of heavier inert gases in Jupiter's atmosphere are about two to three times that of the Sun.[citation needed]" Any thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. LittleJerry (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How fast is Jupiter shrinking?

@LittleJerry, Devonian Wombat, and Christophe1946:

I am not an expert but if I understand right you agree that Jupiter is shrinking and the discussion is just about how quickly it is shrinking? So I thought it would be best to remove the rate from the article until it can be resolved here on the talk page. So I am copying your discussion below.

Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Article originally said "This additional heat is generated by the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism through contraction. This process causes Jupiter to shrink by about 2 cm each year.[1] When it was first formed, Jupiter was much hotter and was about twice its current diameter.[2]"

Christophe1946 commented:

This value of 2 cm/year seems much too high, because it would correspond to a flux of internal heat of ~150 W/m2, also a too high figure, whereas this effective flux is 20 times weaker, ~7.5 W/m2, what is compatible with an annual shrinking of only ~1 mm, a figure precisely given by Patrick Irwin in the second edition of his book [3]; citation, p. 4 : "the radius of Jupiter is estimated to be currently shrinking by approximately 1 mm/yr". A new figure for the internal flux of 7.485 ± 0.163 W/m2 is given by Liming Li et al. in their article[4]. In this way they correct the old classical figure of 5.444 ± 0.425 W/m2 and also the figure of the Bond albedo of Jupiter with 0.503 ± 0.012 instead of the classical figure of 0.343 ± 0.032; all these new figures are resulting from the measurements made by the Cassini probe.

and also:

You can read the book by Patrick Irwin. On page 4 of its second edition (2009) it is clearly given 1 mm/yr and not 2 cm/year. From where is coming this last wrong figure, I don't know.

His value of 1 mm is corroborated by the paper by Liming Li et al. of 2018 giving an experimental flux of internal heat of 7.485 W/m^2 as measured on place by the Cassini probe. This correct reference to this paper is already given as n° 12, attesting the new figure, in the box, for the Bond albedo of 0.503 !

You can easy calculate yourself the effect and can get the observed figure of 1 mm/yr related to 7.5 W/m^2 with the derivative with respect to t of the formula giving the total gravitational energy of Jupiter (see here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin%E2%80%93Helmholtz_mechanism) :

U = (3/10)G M^2/R = 1.03 10^36 J,

i.e. dU/dt = -(3/10)G M^2/R^2 dR/dt = -1.46 10^28 dR/dt.

Introducing dR/dt = -1 mm/yr = -0.001 m/yr = -3.17 10^-11 m/s, you get dU/dt = 4.64 10^17 W.

Dividing by the whole area of Jupiter 6.14 10^16 m^2 you get 7.55 W/m^2.

Are you now convinced ?

If you introduce 2 cm/yr instead of 1 mm/yr, you'll get 150 W/m^2, clearly a much too high figure.

I agree that Jupiter is shrinking by 1 mm/yr, I just think the section needs to be hidden until it can be cleaned up. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The 2018 paper is open access so it would have been nice to have cited that - but I did not spot the shrinkage itself in there. Did I miss it? If not I guess it would be best to cite Irwin? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Here again are the two cited sources, on one side, the second edition of the book by Patrick Irwin[5] from which a give a citation: "the radius of Jupiter is estimated to be currently shrinking by approximately 1 mm/yr"; and, on the other side, the article by Liming Li et al.[6] giving the corresponding figure of 7.485 W/m^2. --Christophe1946 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for clarifying

References

  1. ^ Guillot, T.; Stevenson, D. J.; Hubbard, W. B.; Saumon, D. (2004). "Chapter 3: The Interior of Jupiter". In Bagenal, F.; Dowling, T. E.; McKinnon, W. B. (eds.). Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-81808-7.
  2. ^ Bodenheimer, P. (1974). "Calculations of the early evolution of Jupiter". Icarus. 23. 23 (3): 319–325. Bibcode:1974Icar...23..319B. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(74)90050-5.
  3. ^ Patrick G. J. Irwin (2003). Giant Planets of Our Solar System: Atmospheres, Composition, and Structure. Springer. ISBN 3-540-00681-8., second edition, 2009, ISBN 978-3-642-09888-8.
  4. ^ Liming, Li; et al. (2018). "Less absorbed solar energy and more internal heat for Jupiter". Nature Communications. 9 (3709): 1–10. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06107-2.
  5. ^ Patrick G. J. Irwin (2003). Giant Planets of Our Solar System: Atmospheres, Composition, and Structure. Springer. ISBN 3-540-00681-8., second edition, 2009, ISBN 978-3-642-09888-8.
  6. ^ Liming, Li; et al. (2018). "Less absorbed solar energy and more internal heat for Jupiter". Nature Communications. 9 (3709): 1–10. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06107-2.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

How long is a day in Jupiter? 0d 9h 56m How long is Jupiter's year? 12 years How long does it take for the Sun's light to reach Jupiter? about 43 minutes What is the surface temperature like in Jupiter? With an average temperature of minus 234 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 145 degrees Celsius), Jupiter is frigid even in its warmest weather How many moons does Jupiter have? Jupiter has 79 confirmed moons orbiting it. The four most famous moons, the Galilean Moons, are among the biggest moons in the Solar System. Moons here are very different from Earthś Pick two moons and describe the differences.79 and more moons

About your space probe: i. How long did your space probe take to get to Jupiter? 5 years

ii. What five instruments (there are more than five ) did it have on the space probe? A gravity/radio science system (Gravity Science) A six-wavelength microwave radiometer for atmospheric sounding and composition (MWR) A vector magnetometer (MAG) Plasma and energetic particle detectors (JADE and JEDI) A radio/plasma wave experiment (Waves) An ultraviolet imager/spectrometer (UVS)

iii. What is the purpose of each of these five instruments? Gravity science Monitors gravity in Jupiter Juno Microwave Radiometer 

investigates the deep atmosphere of Jupiter.

Magnetic Field Experiment to understand the origin and evolution of Jupiter. Underneath its dense cloud cover JEDI (Jupiter Energetic-particle Detector Instrument) JADE (Jovian Auroral Distributions Experiment) Waves Waves is an experiment on the Juno spacecraft to study radio and plasma waves. ... The Waves instrument is designed to help understand the interaction between Jupiter's atmosphere, its magnetic field, its magnetosphere, and to understand Jupiter's auroras. UVR Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is defined as the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum between 100 nanometers (nm) and 400nm.

Name at least three discoveries this space probe made. Juno has revealed the chaotic beauty of Jupiter's stormy cloud tops. ... Jupiter's invisible Great Blue Spot is a concentration of magnetic field lines that appears to shift over time. ... Earth isn't the only planet with aurora. ... Jupiter's polar orbit has enabled it to capture images of the gas giant from a unique perspective.

What part of the electromagnetic spectrum does this space probe use? The Waves instrument is designed to help understand the interaction between Jupiter's atmosphere, its magnetic field, its magnetosphere, and to understand Jupiter's auroras. It is designed to detect radio frequencies from 50 Hz up to 40,000,000 Hz (40 MHz), and magnetic fields from 50 Hz to 20,000 Hz (20 kHz). 

Radio waves travel at the speed of light. How long does it take to send or receive a message from the space probe?(Another way to think about it - How long does it take information traveling the speed of light to travel the distance between Earth and the space probe?)

The spacecraft will travel so far from Earth, it can't be steered in real-time by mission controllers. A signal sent from Earth would take about 45 minutes to reach Jupiter, and it would take another 45 minutes to receive the spacecraft's reply.

Where is the located in our solar system? Position in the Solar System - Jupiter. In the Solar System Jupiter is positioned as the fifth closest to the sun whereas Earth is the third closest to the sun. The average distance from Jupiter to the Sun is 778,330,000 kilometers. The difference between Earth's distance to the Sun and Jupiter's distance is 628,730,000 kilometers. Where is it located in our solar system? Jupiter is the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest in the Solar System How far away is it? 588 million kilometers Any special features of this location? Jupiter Is The Fastest Spinning Planet In The Solar System The Clouds On Jupiter Are Only 50 km Thick: ... The Great Red Spot Has Been Around For A Long Time: … 150 years. Jupiter Has Rings: ... Jupiter's Magnetic Field Is 14 Times Stronger Than Earth's: ... Jupiter Has 67 Moons: How long will it take to get there? The distance between Earth and Jupiter depends on the orbits of each planet but can reach more than 600 million miles. Depending on what the missions do and where they go, it can take around two years to six years to reach Jupiter. How long does it take to communicate with it? 33 - 53 minutes


How does distance impact what instruments you will put on the space probe? Because what you do will impact the whole thing so if you put space in between the parts you are putting space where things should go. Why did you choose this location? We chose this location because Jupiter has lots of interesting facts about it and the probe looked cool. What instruments did you decide to put on your probe? Solar arrays, Gravity Science, Waves What is the purpose of each of these instruments? Gravity science is a monitors gravity in Jupiter A solar array is a collection of multiple solar panels that generate electricity as a system WAVES-Waves is an experiment on the Juno spacecraft to study radio and plasma waves


Based on the purpose of your instruments what could they possibly discover? 

The purpose of the probe is to find, gravitational field, magnetic field, and polar magnetosphere.  NASA's Juno mission has provided its first science results on the amount of water in Jupiter's atmosphere. Published recently in the journal Nature Astronomy, the Juno results estimate that at the equator, water makes up about 0.25% of the molecules in Jupiter's atmosphere — almost three times that of the Sun

How did the destination in space impact what instruments you wanted your space probe to have? Because Jupiter is very cold and you would have to use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3341:1810:2163:2515:95EB:9739 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

First photographs of Jupiter

I'd like to add a paragraph in the "Ground based telescope research" section on the first photograph of Jupiter, taken by G P Bond on 22 March 1851, which revealed that Jupiter was much brighter than expected and could be emitting its own light, and the first detailed photograph of another planet, taken by Andrew Ainslie Common on 3 September 1879. I can't do this yet as I have only just created my account. References http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28247/28247-h/28247-h.htm#Page_407 https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/301575.pdf (page 563 & Figure 4) The Common photograph is sometimes miscredited to Clerke. RobertMcLachlan (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Jupiter's Age

Jupiter's age is estimated to be 632-731 million years old, according to its D/H ratios. https://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0467v1.pdfAirpeka (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That young, huh? Interesting. However, it lacks any citations and appears mistaken in its conclusion. Praemonitus (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Surface pressure?

I'm unclear why this information is included into the infobox. The pressures listed are in the cloud deck at arbitrary altitudes and tell the reader essentially nothing. I'd like to instead suggest we use the values from this reference:

Bjoraker, G. L.; Wong, M. H.; de Pater, I.; Ádámkovics, M. (September 2015). "Jupiter's Deep Cloud Structure Revealed Using Keck Observations of Spectrally Resolved Line Shapes". The Astrophysical Journal. 810 (2): 10. arXiv:1508.04795. Bibcode:2015ApJ...810..122B. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/122. 122.

This gives the levels of significant visual cloud opacity as 2–6 bars (200–600 kPa); essentially the viewing "surface" from our perspective. Praemonitus (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

As there was no comment, I was WP:BOLD and implemented this. Praemonitus (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Interior structure needs rewrite - Juno data and diffuse core - Copied from archive 6, to answer

It's been two years since the Juno mission made its discoveries about the diffuse core. I did a hack job of updating this section, but it really needs to be rewritten by someone who knows their stuff. It's not worthy of an FA as it was and now is. — kwami (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comparing Jupiter interior structure models to Juno gravity measurements and the role of a dilute core may be the JUNO results (from first two perijoves) analysis suggesting, or consistent with, a diffuse core. It says "Our models suggest that a dilute core, expanded through a region 0.3–0.5 times the planet's radius is helpful for fitting the observed J n ." A Nature article Jupiter’s secrets revealed by NASA probe May 2017 reports this as "The core could be both larger and more diffuse than expected, extending out to as much as half of Jupiter’s 70,000-kilometre radius." Seems to justify a note about a suggestion rather than a rewrite. Could look for a secondary source based on an analysis of more JUNO passes. - Rod57 (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Has this been addressed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It now says

"it found that Jupiter has a very diffuse core that mixes into its mantle.[55] A possible cause is an impact from a planet of about ten Earth masses a few million years after Jupiter's formation, which would have disrupted an originally solid Jovian core.[56][57] It is estimated that the core is 30–50% of the planet's radius, and contains heavy elements 7–25 times the mass of Earth.[58]

Which seems ok at first sight. - Rod57 (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Helium rain experiment draft

Just for any editors who pass this, I started a draft (Draft:Helium rain experiments) based on some experiments that showed the possibility of "helium rain" inside gas giants. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

I think Jupiter now has 80 known moons, according to the Moons of Jupiter Wikipedia article 2A02:C7F:BEA4:DD00:470:E53A:9207:60E1 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Gallery

The first image on the left has the caption: "The tempestuous atmosphere of Jupiter, captured by the Wide Field Camera 3 on the Hubble Space Telescope in infrared." This is incorrect! The image on Commons states: "This infrared view of Jupiter was created from data captured on 11 January 2017 with the Near-InfraRed Imager (NIRI) instrument at Gemini North in Hawaiʻi, the northern member of the international Gemini Observatory, a Program of NSF’s NOIRLab. It is actually a mosaic of individual frames that were combined to produce a global portrait of the planet. In the image warmer areas appear bright, including four large hot spots that appear in a row just north of the equator. South of the equator, the oval-shaped and cloud-covered Great Red Spot appears dark." --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Two gas giants, not four

Under "Physical characteristics" header, first sentence says Jupiter is one of the *four* gas giants. According to the page on gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn are the only two gas giants. Uranus and Neptune are now referred to as ice giants.

Propose changing "four" to "two." 2603:7080:F207:F422:101F:85AE:F8D8:B8A3 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Corrected. Ruslik_Zero 20:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Visibility of the Great Red Spot through Earth-based telescopes

I cannot edit the article, so I post it here. In the article someone wrote “The storm is visible through Earth-based telescopes with an aperture of 12 cm or larger.”, citing Covington, Michael A. (2002), Celestial Objects for Modern Telescopes, Cambridge University Press, p. 53, ISBN 978-0-521-52419-3. That is not what the book says on page 53: “[…] a [12-cm] or larger telescope reveals a wealth of detail.” In fact, I think I have seen the spot through a Newtonian telescope with an aperture smaller than 120mm. That was last year, so I am not absolutely sure any more, but either way the book is being quoted wrongly. --Saiphhares (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

25 minutes ago (20:25 UTC), I saw the GRS through a slightly smaller telescope, with an aperture of 114mm, at magnifications of ~43×, 90× and 180×. --Saiphhares (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

ಭಾರತೀಯರು ಇಂದ್ರ ಎಂದು ಕರೆಯಲ್ಪಡುವ ಗ್ರಹ

ಭಾರತೀಯರು ಇಂದ್ರ ಎಂದು ಕರೆಯಲ್ಪಡುವ ಗ್ರಹ 2401:4900:4BD4:88B2:1:0:885F:A01B (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That may be useful information for the Kannada Wikipedia article kn:ಗುರು_(ಗ್ರಹ), but we only need the English name here. Certes (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

Paragraph 1, sentence 3. Change "and it has been observed it since prehistoric times" to "and it has been observed since prehistoric times." HOptimas (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The outer atmosphere is visibly segregated into several bands at different latitudes, with turbulence and storms along their interacting boundaries. A prominent result of this is the Great Red Spot, a giant storm known to have existed since at least the 17th century when telescopes first saw it.

"A prominent result of this is the Great Red Spot, a giant storm known to have existed since at least the 17th century when telescopes first saw it."

It is not known that the Great Red spot has existed since the 17th century since there is long gap until its next observance in 1830. The wiki page on the Great Red Spot has this correctly stated: The Great Red Spot may have existed since before 1665, but it could also be the case that the present spot was first seen only in 1830, and well-studied only after a prominent apparition in 1879. The storm that was seen in the 17th century may have been different than the storm that exists today.[4] A long gap separates its period of current study after 1830 from its 17th century discovery. Whether the original spot dissipated and reformed, whether it faded, or if the observational record was simply poor is unknown.[5]

Suggest changing wording to convey that it may have existed since the 17th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A7E0:3C40:245F:7F0C:1378:343D (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I updated the text. Praemonitus (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Max atmospheric temperature

In the infobox, the maximum temperature at 0.1 bar was listed as ~1,000 K.[1] This is a valid temperature, but it doesn't appear to occur at the 0.1 bar altitude. Praemonitus (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ O’Donoghue, J.; Moore, L.; Bhakyapaibul, T.; Melin, H.; Stallard, T.; Connerney, J. E. P.; Tao, C. (August 2021). "Global upper-atmospheric heating on Jupiter by the polar aurorae". Nature. 596 (7870): 54–57. Bibcode:2021Natur.596...54O. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03706-w.

Jupiter masses and fusion

I removed the following statement because it appears false. A quick check shows that there are very low mass star evolutionary models with a radius smaller than 0.1 M☉, which is a Jupiter radius.

Although Jupiter would need to be about 75 times more massive to fuse hydrogen and become a star, the smallest red dwarf is only about 30 percent larger in radius than Jupiter.[1]

Burrows et al (2001) give values of around 0.07–0.074 M☉ for hydrogen fusion with solar abundances,[2] which is 73–77 M☉, so that part is okay.

The star EBLM J0555–57Ab though is only slightly larger than Saturn.[3]

Okay, that should be enough for a rewrite... done. Praemonitus (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Finding a "Saturn-size low-mass star at the hydrogen-burning limit" is just, well, cool. XOR'easter (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Queloz, Didier (November 19, 2002). "VLT Interferometer Measures the Size of Proxima Centauri and Other Nearby Stars". European Southern Observatory. Retrieved January 12, 2007.
  2. ^ Burrows, Adam; Hubbard, W. B.; Lunine, J. I.; Liebert, James (July 2001). "The theory of brown dwarfs and extrasolar giant planets". Reviews of Modern Physics. 73 (3): 719–765. arXiv:astro-ph/0103383. Bibcode:2001RvMP...73..719B. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.73.719. Hence the HBMM at solar metallicity and Yα = 50.25 is 0.07 – 0.074 M☉, ... while the HBMM at zero metallicity is 0.092 M☉
  3. ^ von Boetticher, Alexander; Triaud, Amaury H. M. J.; Queloz, Didier; Gill, Sam; Lendl, Monika; Delrez, Laetitia; Anderson, David R.; Collier Cameron, Andrew; Faedi, Francesca; Gillon, Michaël; Gómez Maqueo Chew, Yilen; Hebb, Leslie; Hellier, Coel; Jehin, Emmanuël; Maxted, Pierre F. L.; Martin, David V.; Pepe, Francesco; Pollacco, Don; Ségransan, Damien; Smalley, Barry; Udry, Stéphane; West, Richard (August 2017). "The EBLM project. III. A Saturn-size low-mass star at the hydrogen-burning limit". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 604: 6. arXiv:1706.08781. Bibcode:2017A&A...604L...6V. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731107. L6.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rr3961 (article contribs).

Please note that the article is currently undergoing a good article review, so it will be subject to change in order to satisfy the issues. This might not be the best time for major edits. Praemonitus (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Deepest atmosphere?

The article contained the following statement that was not confirmed by the references:

Jupiter has the deepest planetary atmosphere in the Solar System, spanning over 5,000 km (3,000 mi) in altitude.[1][2]

Is it the deepest? Intuitively one might think so, but this is not necessarily true. I could not locate a reliable source for the assertion, so for now I modified it to match what can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Seiff, A.; Kirk, D. B.; Knight, T. C. D.; Young, R. E.; Mihalov, J. D.; Young, L. A.; Milos, F. S.; Schubert, G.; Blanchard, R. C.; Atkinson, D. (1998). "Thermal structure of Jupiter's atmosphere near the edge of a 5-μm hot spot in the north equatorial belt". Journal of Geophysical Research. 103 (E10): 22857–22889. Bibcode:1998JGR...10322857S. doi:10.1029/98JE01766.
  2. ^ Miller, Steve; Aylward, Alan; Millward, George (January 2005). "Giant Planet Ionospheres and Thermospheres: The Importance of Ion-Neutral Coupling". Space Science Reviews. 116 (1–2): 319–343. Bibcode:2005SSRv..116..319M. doi:10.1007/s11214-005-1960-4. S2CID 119906560.

The Aphelion and Perihelion are incorrect

The page list AU and Gm for these categories. Gm is 1 billion meters. Mm is 1 million meters. Saturn is correct at just over 1 Gm (1,000 million meters) for its Aphelion and Perihelion, but Jupiter states it is incorrectly at 816 Gm for its Aphelion and 740 Gm for its Perihelion, which is quite a bit off. 2600:1005:B0F0:4BB8:C5F6:566:C83:2148 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The source used in the article says those figures at 816.3 and 740.5 Gm. Not all planets have a near circular orbit like us so those figures are likely to be right for Jupiter. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Jupiter's numbers are good. Saturn has aphelion at 10.0 AU (1.50 billion km) which is notably more than 1 billion km. -- Kheider (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
A Gm is a million km. Per the Jupiter Fact Sheet source, Jupiter has a semi-major axis of 816.363 × 106 km, or 816.363 Gm. Praemonitus (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2022

In Vedic astrology, Hindu astrologers named the planet after Brihaspati, the religious teacher of the gods, and often called it "Guru", which literally means the "Heavy One".[233] 86.10.33.74 (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"Guru" which literally means "the teacher" Jupiter is 1,000 times larger in mass than Earth. We should understand each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.102.139 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated. Praemonitus (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Speculation about life in Jupiter's clouds

Carl Sagan article mentions that he speculated about life in Jupiter's clouds with Edwin E. Salpeter (in section "Scientific achievements"), with a link to this article. However it seems this text disappeared. Nothing either in Atmosphere of Jupiter. Any idea? Yann (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's briefly mentioned at Atmosphere of Jupiter#Possibility of life. Praemonitus (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.thecut.com/article/what-is-jupiter-retrograde.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.102.173 (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC) https://www.space.com/jupiter-mesmerizing-storms-north-pole-juno-images — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.102.173 (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2023

The age is unknown. 216.249.88.28 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

rotation rate

I remember reading as a wee lad that Jupiter rotates in less than six hours (with the comment, perhaps in one of Asimov's magazine essays, "no wonder its equator bulges"). Here we say ten hours (similar to Saturn). Is my memory that bad? Has something been redefined? —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jupiter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)

I'll organize the review by the GA criteria:

Well-written

@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)

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)
I did what I could. Praemonitus (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
What you have looks good. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
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)

Lede

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Name and symbol

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

Formation and migration

  • 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)

Physical characteristics

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

History

  • 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)
  • 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)

Exploration

  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • Okay, but could you at least link to the article terminator?
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Moons

  • 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)
  • 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)

Interaction with the Solar System

Mythology

  • @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)

Verifiable

@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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • The link in ref 58 is broken. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Broad

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)

Neutral

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

Stable

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

Illustrated

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)

Verdict

  • 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)

The discovery of Jupiter's belts

Please, can someone look at this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soldan~itwiki#c-331dot-20230428153000-Soldan~itwiki-20230428145300

Thank you

Soldan Soldan~itwiki (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The question of eccentricity dampening

I don't see any discussion of eccentricity and inclination dampening of Jupiter while it was forming (and migrating). In contrast we know of a number of Jupiter-mass exoplanets that have much higher eccentricities. I think an explanation is needed for the low eccentricity in the Formation and Migration section. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

added. Serendipodous 18:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Referencing

Serendipodous and Praemonitus, you two are the most active editors here. The article is GA but there are still some unreferenced sentences here and there at the end of paragraphs (possibly within them too). Is a quick fix possible? Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Perhaps you could apply {{cn}} tags (with the date option) where you think it is lacking? I'm not seeing any of those right now and the article looks fairly extensively cited already. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of them have been amended by Serendipodous, but I've added two that remain. Wretchskull (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Added. Serendipodous 08:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023

In the "Composition" section, under "Physical Characteristics", change "...silicon-based compoundsm as..." to "...silicon-based compounds, as..." Omalley10 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, so what's needed for the FA re-promotion?

I don't want to start the FA and suddenly find out the fan belt's missing from the engine. Serendipodous 16:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The reasons for it are in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jupiter/archive1. Cambalachero (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments: There are some errors in the References list. The lead doesn't mention the formation of the planet, its orbital period or orbital resonance with Saturn, the internal structure, or interaction with the Solar System. The section on "Space-based telescope research" tells me absolutely nothing of value. That should be tossed, or expanded. Praemonitus (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Most issues resolved. As for formation in the lede, well if we did that for Jupiter we'd have to do that for all the other planets as well. Serendipodous 22:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to summarize the article, and the formation section isn't covered. In addition, the formation of Jupiter shaped the remainder of the system, so it's an important point. If nothing else, it should at least discuss what impact the migration had. Praemonitus (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to address my concerns without making significant changes or requiring revisions to the other planet articles. Praemonitus (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Typo under Orbit and Rotation Section

In the sentence, "This low eccentricity is at odds with exoplanet discoveries, which have revealed Juiter-sized planets with very high eccentricities."

"Juiter-sized" should be corrected to "Jupiter-sized" AtheyMoira (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the error, AtheyMoira. Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Namesake

It seems very odd to say that Thursday is a namesake of Thor. For sure, the name of the day is related to the name of the god, but is it a namesake? To be honest, I don't know, but it's jarring, and throws you off following the main sense of what's written. Dominic Cronin (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A 'name derived from Thor' perhaps? Praemonitus (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

"Jupiter." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jupiter. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Jupiter. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Jupiter diameter

several other credible websites list Jupiter diameter as 142984 km, far more than this Wikipedia artlcal 152.117.114.38 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

What you have listed there is the equatorial diameter. Divide that by two to get 71,492 km, the equatorial radius, which is the amount listed in the article. Praemonitus (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
you are correct; the small value that I had seen was in one of the early paragraphs, but I can't find it now. Should have taken a screen shot... 152.117.114.38 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Image

Would we not want an image that actually displays the Great Red Spot clearly? 2A02:C7C:DD25:6900:D9D2:CD36:939F:52DA (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Displaying iconic features is not necessarily a priority for infobox images. ArkHyena (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
That’s exactly what the image is doing, albeit very poorly. 2A02:C7C:DD25:6900:D8BD:274F:37C2:20CE (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and replacing an image solely to show an iconic feature more prominently isn't a very strong justification to change the infobox image, especially over other factors such as image quality and color. ArkHyena (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Abnormality

It's abnormal that Jupiter, with its diverse array of characteristics, has not yet attained the status of a featured article. Bennett1203 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It has achieved the status of featured article, but was subsequently WP:FARC-ed. I suggest reading the review from the last FAC review for suggestions on how to improve it. Praemonitus (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Jupiter/Archive_6"