Wikipedia:Peer review/Atmosphere of Jupiter/archive1

Atmosphere of Jupiter edit

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

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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed GAN and its final destination is FAC. Any comments are welcome (and especially those related to the clarity of the text).

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review/comments:

A very interesting and well written article! I've just a number of questions/remarks:

In chemical composition: "Their abundances in the deep (below 10 bar) troposphere" the use of pressure to define a 'depth' is not intuitive and has not been explained before.
The links of troposphere, stratosphere, thermosphere and exosphere all lead to articles that only cover the earth's atmosphere. Is it possible to have articles about the general properties of these layers not only limited to the earth's atmosphere?
Ok the explanation about the depths and pressures is in the vertical structure case, maybe add some forward referencing text in the chemical composition part or swap sections?
last four sentences in specific bands sections are 1 sentence paragraphs. Join to single paragraph?
At the start of the dynamics section, move the link to Atmospheric circulation from "see also:" to "...atmosphere of Earth", in fact all the "see also"s that refer to the earth's version are a bit unexpected. I was expecting that a summary style was used and that they would refer to more extended explanation about the Jupiter case.
In the section on the great red spot, South Equatorial Belt links back to the Atmosphere of Jupiter article.
In the section Oval BA, reference is made to Ovals BC, DE etc. What are these, why are they named like this?
In the section observational history, link to Galileo probe?

ErikvDijk (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved your issues, I think. The whole generic "troposphere," "stratosphere", "exosphere" issue lies outside the scope of this article, and may be dealt with later. Serendi ^pod ous 08:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJH: It looks good overall. Here's a few observations:

In the vertical structure section, is it worthwhile mentioning the value of the scale height for a comparison with the Earth's atmosphere (especially as the term is later used in the Zones section)?
The "Chemical composition" section includes a possible explanation for the underabundance of helium, but it doesn't cover the differing abundances of the other noble gases.[1]
Although the belt/zone structure is stable, don't they change in latitude, coloration and intensity over time? Also, do you want to mention the differential rotation rate of the atmosphere (somewhere other than in the GRS section)?
The descriptions in the "Shallow models" section might be a bit complex for some readers. A couple of graphical illustrations in the Dynamics section may help clarify the descriptions. For example, see the two illustrations here, under "Two Global Circulation Models for both Saturn and Jupiter".
uploaded images. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of non-free images like that may become an issue during FAC. It may be better to find a graphic artist who is willing to render them for wikipedia.—RJH (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want to mention Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 and the effects it had on the atmosphere?

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am grateful to you for the review. Ruslik (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added notes about scale height and enrichment. I also clarified that location and width of bands and jet speeds are approximately constant, while color and intensity can vary. I think it is unwise to say much about Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, because it was just a one-time event, which had no long lasting impact on the atmosphere. Ruslik (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the 'scars' from the collision show anything about the composition of the lower layers? Nergaal (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9#Observations_and_discoveries. Nergaal (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a sentence about it, though I am not sure I've placed it in the right place. Could somebody double-check it? Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 93 is completely off and there needs to be some standardization with the format of the page listings. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced [93]. Standardizations should include, in my opinion, addition of et.el. to all page citations and consistent use of only the first author. Ruslik (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"et al." should not be necessary if there are at most two authors. Nergaal (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's left to do b4 FAC? Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions of RJH need some work. Ruslik (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything still missing b4 FAC? Nergaal (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]