Wikipedia:Peer review/Jupiter/archive1

Jupiter

This article was the ACID winner for the week of December 27. Since then, the article almost instantly became a GA, but failed horribly in the nomination for FA. I was wondering how to improve this article for FA status. You can see the FA nom at WP:FAC. Diez2 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good if you addressed the issues raised in the FAC. (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jupiter) Once that's done a new PR could be used to evaluate the update. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The unsourced statements have been addressed. — RJH (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second the suggestion about working on the FAC issues first. The page is in good shape; take care of the FAC concerns and it will be ready for another nomination. Marskell 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, and I must add: Good Article is a rubber stamp. Passing there has little bearing on whether it will make it through FAC. Marskell 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't always found that to be the case. A number of the GA candidates end up going on hold due to issues that need to be addressed. — RJH (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more detail on the radio emmissions. They are mentioned and you would expect to read more in Jupiter's magnetosphere - but no. GB 09:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC) It looks as if I may have to add it in myself![reply]
- I added in a paragraph, but I would appreciate it if you could check for accuracy or improvements. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its looking much better now, the reference is good, but that refers to spaceweather.com that does not mention it.
  - Perhaps there could be more on the L-Waves sweeping rapidly from high frequency to low frequency (sounding like popping) and S-Waves (sounding like waves) and frequency in the HF band from 10 to 30 megahertz with concentration around 21 megahertz. GB 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll see what I can come up with. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC nomination is now at (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jupiter/archive1) for more comments. I can see a few missing ISSN and ISBN numbers, stray quote in reference 2, note 36 title does not match what it points to. ("NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Finds "Blue Straggler" Stars in the Core of a Globular Cluster). in Jupiter: The Giant Planet, Second, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press. should that be a second edition?
- I tried to address this; fixing the link and correcting the cite book templates. — RJH (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the info box the surface pressure is listed 74kpa, but the pressure of the atmosphere goes up far more than that, and there may or may not be a surface. It may be better to dispence with this or reword to say that the composition was measured at this pressure. Instead have a pressure at the centre which will be many Gpa. Also the temperature would vary due to abiadatic heating as you go deeper in the planet.
- I added a note that the pressure is for the cloud layer, then replaced it with a range. The template probably needs a fix. — RJH (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GB 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that there is a box on the bottom with all the moon listed but the a hide/show button. This is not mentioned in the "moons" or natural satellites paragraph which does not ahve a complete list, but the box on the bottom does. (I am not sure how this is fixable)GB 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a main article link to Jupiter's natural satellites which covers the topic in much more detail. I think it's probably appropriate "summary style" usage to just link the Galilean moons in this article. — RJH (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]