Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Rings of Jupiter

Rings of Jupiter

I wrote a lengthy article about jovian ring system. Please, review it, any comments are welcome. Ruslik 11:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, scientifically the article appears solid. Nice! My handful of issues with the page were of a non-scientific nature. I.e. some of the jargon could be considered overly technical for some readers; there may be some missing wikilinks (e.g. optical density); the lead doesn't quite satisfy WP:LEAD; there a few grammar issues, &c. I thought it might also be helpful to compare the total mass of the rings with something to which a typical reader can relate. (C.f. Orders of magnitude (mass).) — RJH (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be very grateful if you pointed more precisely which jargon words irritate you and also elaborated more on grammar issues. I have become so used to my text and jargon that it may be difficult for me to find them all. I agree that the lead isn't good and I will try to improve it after the work on the main text is finished. Ruslik 13:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. (But just to clarify, the jargon words don't actually irritate me. They may prove an issue for some readers, however. I've been dinged in the past on the use of jargon during GAs, so I try to keep it in mind when I'm reviewing other's work.) Here's a list:
  • R_J -- it may be unclear this means the radius of Jupiter. You may want to clarify it at the first usage.
  • "forward scattered light" and "back scattered light", although I see they have a clarification now. Do these need a hyphen as well (i.e. forward-scattered)?
  • "broken power law", "normalizing parameter", "Poynting-Robertson drag", "Volatile compounds", "vertically integrated fluxs" (fluxes?), "Lorentz resonance", and "optical depth".
  • Possibly the use of a mathematical tilde (~) rather than "about" or "around" or "approximately". But I'm okay with it.
• Spelling/Grammar issues: "unobseved", "allows to estimate", "aspherical" (a spherical), "approximatly", "begins steep decrease" ("begins a" or "begins to decrease sharply"), "light scattered by the small angle" (at a?), "outward of Adrastean['s] orbit", "actually very steep and [is] located", "ring is relatively steep[,] especially at the", "razor thin[,] extending", "The spectral properties [of] the Halo Ring", "and [the] ACS", "allowed to determine the particle size", "slightly decreases in the directions of the planet" (there's only one direction), "revealed the existence of the rich", and "allowed to observe". Some instances of "razor thin" may need a hyphen ("razor-thin").
• The sentence that begins "Though there is a" doesn't reach a conclusion.
• "albedo", "spectral properties", "orbital inclination" and "power law" need wikilinks.
• When the article says "rectangular shape", perhaps it could clarify that this means cross-section?

I hope this was somewhat helpful. — RJH (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the details. I incorporated them in to the article except that 'aspherical' means smth, which isn't spherical.Ruslik 06:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. From the context though I had taken the meaning as "...a spherical...". Please pardon my error. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also transcluded this into WP:PR so discussions there, as well as at {{WP:SPR]], are together. --Bduke 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the lead.

• First, make it clear that "jovian" is an adjective of Jupiter, maybe by writing Jupiter possesses a planetary ring system, the jovian ring system.
• Indicate that Metis and Adrastea are Jupiter moons.
• require largest available telescopes. Isn't it the largest or larger?

Anyway great article! CG 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I included your suggestions, thanks. Ruslik 06:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The end of the review

Thanks to everybody who participated in the review process. I think the article is now ready for GA or FA nomination. I also expanded the leading section to satisfy the requirements. Ruslik 13:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)