Wikipedia:Peer review/Exploration of Jupiter/archive1

Exploration of Jupiter

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of getting it to FAC and I would like to know what is still missing. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from RJH:

• Given that there is a section on the "Collision of comet Shoemaker-Levy", and that was based on remote observation, I think it would be appropriate to begin the article with a well-developed history of telescope observation. Also if there is anything pre-Galileo that was of scientific interest, that would probably be relevant as well. Doing so would help satisfy WP:FACR 1b.
• The current lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD. That section tends to get a lot of attention during any review, so it would be appropriate to develop it further.
• I'm not sure how feasible this suggestion is, but it would be interesting to have an image in the lead that showed the trajectories of the various flyby probes, possibly a gray band showing the orbital region of the Galileo mission. Having this to compare against the radiation belts and the moon orbits would be informative.
• I would like to see more attention paid to some of the surprising discoveries made during the Pioneer mission. For example, it was found that the magnetosphere was much larger than had been expected, and it showed a 10 hour periodicity.[1] Also surprising was the unexpectedly high levels of radiation discovered. It should also mention Pioneer 11's role in the discovery of Jupiter's ring system.

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ricardiana

• "In order for a spacecraft to reach the orbit of Jupiter from the Earth's orbit, it requires almost the same amount of energy as it does to lift it from the surface of Earth and put it into a low Earth orbit." - I think that this sentence could be made a little more concise. Perhaps "For a spacecraft to X requires Y."
• "Pioneer 10 flew past Jupiter in December 1973, the first spacecraft to ever explore Jupiter, followed by Pioneer 11 thirteen months later." Your middle clause would work better coming after "Pioneer 10".
• "close up" - you use this a number of times to modify a noun. Whenever you use a two (or three) word phrase to modify a noun, the phrase should be hyphenated.
• Amalthea and Io are not linked on their first appearance but rather on their second or third.
• "In February 2004, the probe came again to the vicinity of Jupiter." This reads a little awkwardly. "Near Jupiter"?

More later. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Discovery of volcanic activity on the moon Io was the greatest unexpected discovery regarding Jupiter, since it was the first time an active volcano has been observed on another celestial body" - repetition of "discovery." Perhaps you could call it a surprise, or something like that? Also, you changed tenses from past to present.
• "there is evidence that other eruptions occurred between the Voyager encounters." Could you briefly mention what this evidence is? I assume lava, but I don't want to assume.
• "might have been painted on with a felt marker" - you do not give a source for this statement, and the next in-line citation does not contain this quotation.

A quick Google search shows a source containing the quotation - [2] - which also makes the statements about the crust and internal heat, etc., very similarly to the way you've worded them, but only as possibilities rather than phrasing them, as you do, as certainties. You need to clean up your use of sources here. This is a big problem.

• Now that I'm looking at sources, I see that "A third new satellite, Thebe, was discovered between the orbits of Amalthea and Io" is cited to a website that contains no mention of Thebe.

I'm just going to start a new section on sourcing problems. There's no point in fixing the prose when you're shooting for FAC and there are bigger (citation) fish to fry.

Sourcing problems ~ comments by Ricardiana

• Note 1. Source does not give 9.2 figure.
• Note 5. Dead link - needs to be removed and another source found.
• Note 6 - a. Cites information only partially given on website. Figure of 570,000 not given in source.
• Note 6 - b. Source does not even mention Thebe.
• Note 6 - c. Source does not even mention Europa. Wording and statements appear to be taken from uncited website.
• Note 10. Link didn't work for me.
• Note 14. Source does not even mention Himalia or Elara.
• Note 17. Source does not even mention space debris.
• Note 21 - a. Source does not even mention Amalthea or Comet Shoemaker-Levey 9!
• Note 21 - b. Source does not mention Europa.
• Note 21 - c. Citation is to this statement: "Major scientific results of the Galileo mission include" - followed by a number of findings not mentioned in your source.
• Note 23. Does not mention wind - at all!
• Note 30. Source doesn't say anything about funding, or competition for funding; it only lists other projects. Your conclusion is original research, which is not acceptable.
• Note 31. Source does not mention Ganymede or proposed Ganymede orbiter.

These are significant problems! If you plan on taking this to FAC, all sources need to be fixed.

One final point. Why are no books cited? I've studied astronomy and they certainly exist. A quick Google Books search turns up quite a few.

These problems are so serious that not only is this article not ready for FAC, I don't think it is a Good Article either, and I will be asking for a re-assessment. Ricardiana (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)