3 Juno was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Per the OED, the adjectival form is Junonian (jew-noe'-nee-un). kwami 06:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
Does anyone know the copyright status of the Mt Wilson observatory image File:3 juno.jpg that has recently disappeared. Was this deleted by a bot? Deuar 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Needs some expansion on the discovery, and it's former status as a planet...
Juno was listed as 7th, but this appears to be an exaggeration. Check out List of noteworthy asteroids#Largest known asteroids. Apart from ambiguity in how to rank (by mean diameter ~235km [more sensible I think], or longest diameter 290km), there are several bodies which are distinctly larger: 52 Europa, 624 Hektor, 15 Eunomia. Also, 87 Sylvia, 31 Euphrosyne, 16 Psyche, and 65 Cybele are difficult to rank in comparison. Most of these have only a mean diameter given. Deuar 14:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A couple of things in re the GA nomination. I would really like to see an image. If the recent ones are restricted even one showing it as a point of light would be nice. Also as mentioned above, there is no discussion of its initial cataloguing as a planet nor whether it might qualify as a dwarf planet under the recent definition. Eluchil404 15:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Pallas and Vesta probably meet the IAU definition of dwarf planet but have not been officially classified due to uncertaincies in their exact shape. See Dwarf planet#List of dwarf planets and [1] Eluchil404 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above mentioned image shows as a 'red-link'. I just uploaded a GIF animation of pictures I took in February Might this be useful? Awolf002 00:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I added it to the infobox. Awolf002 11:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC
Anyway, The third discovered asteroid needs some pictures, Its the third discovered asteroid!, even if animated -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather have no picture than jeopardize the free distribution of Wikipedia by violating somebody's copyright! The images you refer to seem to be owned by Harvard's astronomy department and thus can not be used if they do not give them to use under a GFDL compatible copyright. Please, do verify this first, before uploading these images again. Awolf002 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ive reviewed the article and deemed it ready for GA, i did on the other hand make 2 edits as information was incorrect. Though the article is quite short, im well aware that there isnt all that much info on Juno. anyway well done guys -- Nbound 11:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Judging by these 19th century drawings, it appears that Juno's symbol has been simplified. I'd like to add a brief discussion of this in, as with 4 Vesta, but am not sure where to put it. Suggestions?
P.S. I've started adding the other symbols. See 5 Astraea. Adam Cuerden talk 23:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that in the Fictional Universe of Mobile Suit Gundam 3 Juno was towed to the Earth Sphere, Renamed Luna II, mined out then moved to L3 to become am Earth Federation Space Force major stronghold? 68.9.223.94 13:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The Artist's conception of 3 Juno ( Image:3AS.jpg) is marked as GFDL, but it comes from a Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics press release, and there is no indication at the site that the image is available under the GFDL. I've had a previous success getting the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics office of Public Affairs to release an image under a free license, so I've contacted them again and inquired about obtaining a free license to the images from this press release. In the meantime I'm going to remove the image from the article. — RP88 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
"Radio signals from spacecraft in orbit around Mars and/or on its surface have been used to estimate the mass of Juno from the tiny perturbations induced by it onto the motion of Mars.[2]"
This is a load of ****. I don't buy it for a minute.
68.55.167.119 01:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You have a right to your opinion, care to illiterate on it. This will give us a chance to see where your coming from and hopefully address this issue for you. Abyssoft 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
I will place this on hold for a week to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If progress is being made, an extension will be granted if necessary. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Copy edited.
kwami ( talk) 22:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in adding the references to the prose using <ref name=...>. I think it would help the article, but it's good to know that references can be found in the article. As for my question about the surface features and geology, I agree that the information should be left in the "Characteristics" section" if that is all that's available. Thanks for your quick response. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed the lack of ref for the belt mass budget between Ceres through Vesta. Also straightened author names and numerous misspellings of et al.. That should do it. Urhixidur ( talk) 20:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Added a fair-use image. This is a press release from a scientific institute, partially run by the US govt, not a for-profit publication. kwami ( talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The article currently gives the mass of 3 Juno as 2.67 ×1019 kg, but the citation supporting this mass since been updated with 2 new values: 2.31 ×1019 kg (Fienga 2010) and 2.86 ×1019 kg (Baer 2011). Should the article reflect these later values? Mynameisnoted ( talk) 19:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
When I see a pair of sentences such as: "An alternate but less likely explanation is an impact by a sizeable body."(around 1839) and "The images spanned a whole rotation period and revealed an irregular shape and a dark albedo feature, interpreted as a fresh impact site." I wonder about the wisdom of including random factoids from uncorrelated sources without either searching out a more recent discussion which resolves the apparent conflict one way or the other, (i.e. remove 'less likely' or 'but such an impact could not have produced the orbital deviation attributed to 1839'). In any case, i seriously doubt the orbital deviation caused by a non-collision interaction with another planetesimal body would appear to be 'sudden' unless that body were one of the larger objects with well understood paths.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
3 Juno. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 3 Juno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 3 Juno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.asteroidoccultation.com/2013_07/0729_3_30531.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.asteroidoccultation.com/2013_07/0730_3_29995.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 3 Juno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://comets-asteroids.findthedata.org/l/3015/3-Juno{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Baliunas_etal_1.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Like 10 Hygiea which I started a GAR for, this article is very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are very few sources from after 2010. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections, massive white space beneath the "Observations" section, and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try). Nrco0e ( talk) 08:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
3 Juno was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Per the OED, the adjectival form is Junonian (jew-noe'-nee-un). kwami 06:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
Does anyone know the copyright status of the Mt Wilson observatory image File:3 juno.jpg that has recently disappeared. Was this deleted by a bot? Deuar 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Needs some expansion on the discovery, and it's former status as a planet...
Juno was listed as 7th, but this appears to be an exaggeration. Check out List of noteworthy asteroids#Largest known asteroids. Apart from ambiguity in how to rank (by mean diameter ~235km [more sensible I think], or longest diameter 290km), there are several bodies which are distinctly larger: 52 Europa, 624 Hektor, 15 Eunomia. Also, 87 Sylvia, 31 Euphrosyne, 16 Psyche, and 65 Cybele are difficult to rank in comparison. Most of these have only a mean diameter given. Deuar 14:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A couple of things in re the GA nomination. I would really like to see an image. If the recent ones are restricted even one showing it as a point of light would be nice. Also as mentioned above, there is no discussion of its initial cataloguing as a planet nor whether it might qualify as a dwarf planet under the recent definition. Eluchil404 15:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Pallas and Vesta probably meet the IAU definition of dwarf planet but have not been officially classified due to uncertaincies in their exact shape. See Dwarf planet#List of dwarf planets and [1] Eluchil404 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above mentioned image shows as a 'red-link'. I just uploaded a GIF animation of pictures I took in February Might this be useful? Awolf002 00:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I added it to the infobox. Awolf002 11:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC
Anyway, The third discovered asteroid needs some pictures, Its the third discovered asteroid!, even if animated -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather have no picture than jeopardize the free distribution of Wikipedia by violating somebody's copyright! The images you refer to seem to be owned by Harvard's astronomy department and thus can not be used if they do not give them to use under a GFDL compatible copyright. Please, do verify this first, before uploading these images again. Awolf002 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ive reviewed the article and deemed it ready for GA, i did on the other hand make 2 edits as information was incorrect. Though the article is quite short, im well aware that there isnt all that much info on Juno. anyway well done guys -- Nbound 11:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Judging by these 19th century drawings, it appears that Juno's symbol has been simplified. I'd like to add a brief discussion of this in, as with 4 Vesta, but am not sure where to put it. Suggestions?
P.S. I've started adding the other symbols. See 5 Astraea. Adam Cuerden talk 23:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that in the Fictional Universe of Mobile Suit Gundam 3 Juno was towed to the Earth Sphere, Renamed Luna II, mined out then moved to L3 to become am Earth Federation Space Force major stronghold? 68.9.223.94 13:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The Artist's conception of 3 Juno ( Image:3AS.jpg) is marked as GFDL, but it comes from a Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics press release, and there is no indication at the site that the image is available under the GFDL. I've had a previous success getting the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics office of Public Affairs to release an image under a free license, so I've contacted them again and inquired about obtaining a free license to the images from this press release. In the meantime I'm going to remove the image from the article. — RP88 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
"Radio signals from spacecraft in orbit around Mars and/or on its surface have been used to estimate the mass of Juno from the tiny perturbations induced by it onto the motion of Mars.[2]"
This is a load of ****. I don't buy it for a minute.
68.55.167.119 01:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You have a right to your opinion, care to illiterate on it. This will give us a chance to see where your coming from and hopefully address this issue for you. Abyssoft 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
I will place this on hold for a week to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If progress is being made, an extension will be granted if necessary. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Copy edited.
kwami ( talk) 22:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in adding the references to the prose using <ref name=...>. I think it would help the article, but it's good to know that references can be found in the article. As for my question about the surface features and geology, I agree that the information should be left in the "Characteristics" section" if that is all that's available. Thanks for your quick response. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed the lack of ref for the belt mass budget between Ceres through Vesta. Also straightened author names and numerous misspellings of et al.. That should do it. Urhixidur ( talk) 20:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Added a fair-use image. This is a press release from a scientific institute, partially run by the US govt, not a for-profit publication. kwami ( talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The article currently gives the mass of 3 Juno as 2.67 ×1019 kg, but the citation supporting this mass since been updated with 2 new values: 2.31 ×1019 kg (Fienga 2010) and 2.86 ×1019 kg (Baer 2011). Should the article reflect these later values? Mynameisnoted ( talk) 19:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
When I see a pair of sentences such as: "An alternate but less likely explanation is an impact by a sizeable body."(around 1839) and "The images spanned a whole rotation period and revealed an irregular shape and a dark albedo feature, interpreted as a fresh impact site." I wonder about the wisdom of including random factoids from uncorrelated sources without either searching out a more recent discussion which resolves the apparent conflict one way or the other, (i.e. remove 'less likely' or 'but such an impact could not have produced the orbital deviation attributed to 1839'). In any case, i seriously doubt the orbital deviation caused by a non-collision interaction with another planetesimal body would appear to be 'sudden' unless that body were one of the larger objects with well understood paths.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
3 Juno. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 3 Juno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 3 Juno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.asteroidoccultation.com/2013_07/0729_3_30531.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.asteroidoccultation.com/2013_07/0730_3_29995.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 3 Juno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://comets-asteroids.findthedata.org/l/3015/3-Juno{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Baliunas_etal_1.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Like 10 Hygiea which I started a GAR for, this article is very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are very few sources from after 2010. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections, massive white space beneath the "Observations" section, and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try). Nrco0e ( talk) 08:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)