This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jupiter article. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Archives: 1 | |||
As of 15 September 2009, this article is a very good article. (compare to current). This means the community feels this article is written very well. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. |
A fact from Jupiter appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 26 January 2009. |
A fact from Jupiter appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 July 2009. |
Daily article pageviews | |
Graphs do not work. You can go to the graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org.
|
This article is used as an example at m:Abstract Wikipedia/Examples/Jupiter.--GrounderUK (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to pull the VGA ranking because it's perfectly clear from En's Grand tack hypothesis [[1]] that our account is quite out of date. Although I have no personal expertise in astronomy, I can see that the issues involved in the early Solar System has more to do with Jupiter than we realised. I'll leave it as GA for the time being, because it is well written as far as it goes. However, science is science, and to omit an account of the way Jupiter may have affected the other parts of the Solar System would not be acceptable in a VGA. I think other editors might read this linked page as well as the En wiki Jupiter page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
In the Exploration - Spacecraft section, there seemed to be misinformation. It said "the two Voyager spacecraft discovered over 20 new moons", but from what I read, they only discovered 3 new moons. This was in the article since an edit in 2008, and I removed it. Lights and freedom (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the comment that Jupiter has been called a failed star. This is generally considered misleading, and even the cited source says so. It probably formed in a different way than stars, starting with a solid core and then accreting gases, unlike the Sun which formed from gravitational contraction of rotating gases. Also, "failed star" is typically used for brown dwarfs, which shrink a lot more under their gravity and can fuse deuterium, but not hydrogen-1. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I have added a section about the formation of Jupiter. I think this is important to include. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I have rewritten the Grand Tack section in my own words and edited a few other things, most using a book from 2020. @Macdonald-ross, could you review the article to see if it's comprehensive enough now? Lights and freedom (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Although most Jupiter-sized exoplanets were found closer to their stars, it's wrong to say this is "almost universal", so I am removing this. The reason is that it's much easier to find planets that are closer to their stars. The transit detection method only allows detection of exoplanets that pass in front, and is more commonly used. The radial velocity method is better at finding planets that are farther away from their stars. While Jupiter (period 4000 days) is definitely on the distant side of the planetary observations that have been seen, it's not that unusual.
Lights and freedom (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have moved the obviously old discussions to an archive. This means this page can focus on what needs fixing/improvement. Archiving is manual, for the moment. Eptalon (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
(Oh, I've somehow fallen foul of the machine. This edit was by user:Macdonald-ross.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1E8F:5D01:8DA9:9C4F:AAA:2CB4 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I think these demands of a specific page for each claim are excessive. As long as we reference a chapter or journal article, that's good enough. A paragraph of this article can summarize a range of pages in a book. Doing what was suggested would require several page numbers for each sentence, which is really unnecessary. Lights and freedom (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)