Wikipedia:Peer review/Jupiter/archive2

Jupiter

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it back to FA and it has undergone a vast amount of work between its delisting and my arrival, so I would like a road map as to what needs to be done.

Thanks, Serendi ^podous 14:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Artem

Article looks good for GA, and I've almost no experience with FA, so I hope my comments would be useful.

A prominent result of this is the Great Red Spot, a giant storm which has been observed since at least 1831. - "prominent" and "at least" look strange in the lead
Callisto is the second largest; Io and Europa are approximately the size of Earth's moon. - the Moon could be linked here
There are several problems with the grand tack hypothesis. - reads a bit strange, though maybe it's ok
Jupiter's departure from the inner solar system - "Jupiter's departure" - can it be paraphrased?
The average density of Jupiter, 1.326 g/cm3, is about the same as simple syrup (syrup USP),[37] - the comparison should help, but for me it's very confusing. Is "simple syrup" a common term known to everyone? If not, better no comparison than bad comparison.

Does my comments have any sense? I can continue, so please tell me if you find it useful. Artem.G (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I've made a few adjustments- not sure if I made them better or worse. Serendi ^podous 18:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think this article is perfect as a popular science introduction article. The layout of the article is clear, and the content under each heading fits the topic well. But I think the introduction part at the beginning could be shorter?
The source of the content of the article is clear and reliable. Almost all come from academic journals, professional books and papers. So the whole article that constitutes is very reliable and authoritative.
This article is wide-ranging and covers major aspects of Jupiter. Always focus on writing Jupiter content. And it has a good science popularization effect.
And the article remains neutral, the language is always neutral, and there is no personal editorial bias.
As an article with relatively large content, I think Jupiter's article is very stable. More academic theories are required, so the content is less controversial.
The article also contains explanatory videos, animations, and many pictures, and each media content has a good description. Help readers better understand the content. And make the article more perfect.

To sum up, I think the Jupiter article is a very good one.Hhhh2 (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the lede. Serendi ^podous 07:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Neuroxic

Some potential copyedits / comments, because you're requsting FA I'm being super picky about these!

The following flow better in my mind / result in less snags, but please use your editorial judgement!

Current: In Germanic mythology, Jupiter is equated to Thor, the namesake of Thursday. It has been theorized that this replaced the Latin name for the day, Dies Iovi ('Day of Jupiter').

Instead: In Germanic mythology, Jupiter is equated to Thor. It has been theorized that Thursday — a namesake of Thor — replaced the Latin name for the day Dies Iovi ('Day of Jupiter').

Current: As the young planet accreted mass, interaction with the gas disk orbiting the Sun and orbital resonances with Saturn caused it to migrate inward.

Instead: The young planet migrated inward as it accreted mass due to interactions with the gas disk orbiting the Sun and orbital resonances with Saturn.

Comment: (Physical characteristics section)

I didn't know what sugar syrup was so had to click on the link... maybe replace it with a more common density (if possible). Syrup also makes me think of viscosity, which is unrelated to density, which may lead some readers astray.

Comment: (Composition subsection)

Beginning the paragraph with a sentence about the upper atmosphere followed by a sentence about the general atmosphere seems strange. Maybe start with the atmosphere in general, and then talk about the upper / lower parts of it?

Comments: (Size and Mass subsection)

The first sentence of this subsection feels long for a topic sentence. Maybe split it into two?
In the examples of Jupiter masses, the first sentence says that extrasolar planets and brown dwarves are sometimes described in Jupiter masses. HD 209458 b is an extrasolar planet,... but isn't there still debate on whether or not Andromedae b is a brown dwarf? Maybe change Kappa Andromedae b with a more definitive example of a brown dwarf in the example.

That's what I've read so far, if you found them useful let me know and I can suggest some more. Neuroxic (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuroxic: I've addressed most of your issues, though I left the migration sentence as was because the alternative confuses the meaning. I couldn't find an alternative to sugar syrup so I moved it to a note instead.Serendi ^podous 18:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]