Talk:Jupiter

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jupiter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
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.

Wikipedia

A fact from Jupiter appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 July 2009.

Wikipedia

Daily article pageviews

Graphs do not work. You can go to the graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org.

Abstract Wikipedia example

This article is used as an example at m:Abstract Wikipedia/Examples/Jupiter.--GrounderUK (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pull VGA ranking

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to pull the VGA ranking because it's perfectly clear from En's Grand tack hypothesis [[1]] that our account is quite out of date.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)[reply]

I would have to fully support this action. The article was in 2 maintenance categories, 2 error categories (ref errors and <As of> cats). Two more and a host of broken refs were added today but hopefully they will soon be fixed. (

Done) There are also statement in the lead I see as questionable as written. "The other gas giants are..." in the entirety of existence? there are only 4 gas giants in the known universe? (other gas giants in the Solar System) "around 50 are very small and less than five kilometres wide" About? are small and small? (about 50 are very small. They are less than five kilometres wide - they are small. in this case, small means <a given size that is small by planetary standards>). As that is just a touch from the lead, I don't have much faith in the edits built up over time since this was made a VGA. out of date and has been messed with too much over time. Creol (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, after another bit of updating, we can be happy that the article does meet VGA criteria, at least on the topic of the Grand tack hypothesis. I have not checked Creole's other points. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the "gas giants" sentence in the lead. --Thrasymedes (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info about moons

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)[reply]

Failed star

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)[reply]

Yes, quite right. The origin and composition of planets is fundamentally different to stars. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formation section

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)[reply]

Grand tack and internal structure

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)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks for your work. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual distance from star

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.

These charts from Caltech will explain: https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/exoplanetplots/

Lights and freedom (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions moved to archive..

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)[reply]

Well, here's something which needs thought, and perhaps more subject-matter knowledge than we have: Section "Core": "However, by measuring the gravity around Jupiter, they can estimate its size". Offhand (I'm no astronomer!) I would say by gravity one can get to the mass. It's not very convincing to say "The heavy elements in the core have a mass 7–25 times that of the Earth". (Ref is: Armitage, Philip J. (2020). Astrophysics of planet formation, 2nd ed. Cambridge. pp. 239–240. ISBN 978-1-108-34422-7. OCLC 1122692088.) The excerpt being a range of 7 to 25 is so inexact as to be not really a number, just a vague guess. Our editor is not at fault here because the same wording occurs on En wiki. And so it does not count against this article being promoted. 2A00:23C6:1E8F:5D01:8DA9:9C4F:AAA:2CB4 (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Citations to pages

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)[reply]

It seems too hard to verify the information with big page ranges. In some cases, a page number isn't provided at all. Wow (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]