Talk:Neptune

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is a very good article.
This means the community feels this article is written very well.

Untitled 1[change source]

Talk page required as article is a proposed very good article. LIAM / LIAM mailbox 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2[change source]

This article is good for regular English Wikipedia, but for Simple, it’s too advanced in level. For blue tag, we might want to you easier language, so, everybody can understand.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 19:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PVGA comments by Barras[change source]

General
lead
  • Neptune has four rings which are had to see from the Earth. - This sentence sounds very odd.
     Fixed Pmlineditor ∞ 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is a little bit heavier than Uranus. Define "a little bit".
  • The astronomical symbol for the planet is Astronomical symbol for Neptune. - I would remove this sentence. I don't really like symbols in sentences.
     Fixed Pmlineditor ∞ 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neptune's atmosphere (a layer of gas floating above planets) is mostly made up of hydrogen and helium (two types of gases), with small amounts of methane which is makes the planet blue. - Too long and the end of the sentence sounds odd.
     Fixed--Chenzw  Talk  11:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Barras (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2021 - Proposed Good Article[change source]

This article, Neptune, is being considered for promotion to Good Article. Please join the discussion at the Proposed Good Articles discussion board. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PGA comments[change source]

It shows that a lot of attention to detail has been given to the article, and generally it is in a good state:

  • Readability: You should generally prefer active tense, if you have everything that is required; for most learners it will be easier to understand
  • The slowly rising temperature (in mass an composition) probably needs a source.
  • The great dark spot (or smaller different-colored spots): Would they deserve their own section?
  • It was the last planet to have been visited by a spacecraft." -> rephrase, what are those rovers doing on Mars?- Btw=, I have rewritten that, and taken out the at least one..
  • In Moons: what does having the shape of a sphere have to do with size? - there are also small spheres.- If kept, probably needs an explanation.
I'll insert a possible answer: the spherical shape we all think of is the product of the object's gravitation. A much smaller chunk of rock stays a chunk because its low gravity is not sufficient to round it up. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a Neptunian year is 165 earth-years long, how can it have returned to the spot it was discovered at (in 1846) three times? - at the end of its year, we had 2013?
  • When you say Nereid has a most unusual orbit, I guess one or two sentences explaining would probably be nice.

In general, the first half or so of the article reads more fluently than the rest.--Eptalon (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[change source]

In general, do not range left photos and illustrations. This disrupts text-flow, and will tend to make reading the text more difficult. Like all guidelines this may have exceptions, but to do it for "elegant variation" is a no-no. I see in this article the text is already interrupted by two page-wide illustrations which cannot be avoided. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VGA status[change source]

I think it will be good if we'll make the article better because it has a good chance. Let's write in this section about what need to do for improvement (increasing the amount of text, periodically watching the references, simplification of the text and so on). Frontfrog (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the articles about Jupiter and Saturn are not so long... Frontfrog (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's nowhere near VGA. We've only just rescued it as a GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structure?[change source]

I don't think the structure diagrams are right. They show a relatively thin atmosphere, a thick water ammonia and methane mantle which is liquid, and a rocky core. But I thought the lower mantle was carbon dominant. I'm using this source: https://www.universetoday.com/21596/what-is-neptune-made-of-1/. I know the NASA one differs. Elytrian - Talk 08:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Neptune's atmosphere rotates backwards in the southern polar regions. Also, Uranus' magnetic field is weaker (according to Voyager 2 observations and simulations from the impact hypothesis) than Neptune's though it is written here that they are alike. Elytrian - Talk 08:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naked eye[change source]

Under section Observation, it says "Neptune cannot be seen with naked eye alone". Is naked eye the simplest way to phrase it? I think either adding something that clarifies on the meaning of naked eye or keeping the link but saying naked eye in other terms would be better. Fixing26 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way would be to say: Neptune cannot be seen without the use of magnifying tools, but that would be less accurate than what is written already. Elytrian - Talk 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, maybe something like that, but I can see how that would make it less accurate. I'm unsure other than that. Fixing26 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Magnifying tools" is a bit stuffy. If I thought the point was worth saying, I might say:
"You need a telescope or binoculars to see it".
A positive verb is easier that its passive version. You can combine the two versions: "You cannot see it just by looking at the sky, you need a telescope or binoculars." Another thing is to judge when to drop the passive voice, which is all over science, but which makes the syntax less friendly. It's used to make the science sound more "objective". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"You can't see Neptune without a telescope" or "Neptune cannot be seen with the naked eye". Either way, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

references errors[change source]

Could someone help with the errors at the bottom of the page? I'm bad at wiki text and use visual so I'm stumped. Elytrian - Talk 04:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure[change source]

End para: "The pressure at the center of Neptune is millions of times greater than on the surface of Earth". Why compare centre with surface? What kind of sense does that make? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible relevance is not clear. I have now taken the text out of the article. 89.8.169.10 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take it out. It makes no sense at all. Neptune has no surface, "surface" conditions are described as conditions at 1 atmospheric pressure (of earth) so even comparing it subjectively makes no sense. Ely - Talk 13:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great dark spot.[change source]

Anybody going to mention it isn't like the Great Red Spot? The great red spot is like Earth's hurricanes and its vibrant color is caused by chemical reactions going on. The great dark spot is just a hole in the cloud deck of Neptune. Ely - Talk 14:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit and rotation[change source]

What do you think whether I can create this section? Frontfrog (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me... Ely - Talk 06:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But don't know really. In "Observation" I added same info (in "Orbit and rotation" it will be expansed maybe). Please write here if it's really need. Frontfrog (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moons' table[change source]

I think it's a little bit difficult to analyze and read complete article with this table. Maybe I'll delete it? Frontfrog (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Odyssey[change source]

Please, add info about 2031 year - first mission launch year to Neptune. It's important. Frontfrog (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes/Improvements to Neptune[change source]

As this is being nominated for VGA, here are improvements I suggest adding before making it VGA.

  • There are currently two redlinks in the article(not including nav templates) and therefore do not meet the requirement of having no redlinks, but that is an easy fix.
  • Images are generally fine and are of proper abundance, but I think that the images of Triton, Proteus, Galileo, etc could use some more caption than just stating their name.
  • Simplify. Lots of sentences in this article are compound or complex, also use simpler verbiage. This is the biggest problem I see here.

Other than that, I see no other problems with it being a VGA. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intro tweaks suggested[change source]

Minor tweaks and such to the intro. Mainly simplifying sentence structure by seperating sentences. One question on weight may need a hint of explaination of how that was done. Is it fact or scientific theory? (ie. Neptune is beleived to be the third ...) Im assuming this fact and a couple others are restated in the main body of the article with refs as the lead has no refs at all. Ice giant, 3rd heaviest, 5 rings, named after the god, found by, atmo composition - all need refs though I expect those are later in the article. Atill at least 1 or 2 could get refs earlier.

Tweaked intro[change source]

Neptune is the eighth planet in the Solar System. It is the farthest planet from the Sun. Neptune is an ice giant. It is the fourth largest planet. Neptune is also the third heaviest planet.[further explanation needed] The planet has five rings. These rings are hard to see from the Earth.

Neptune has 17 times more mass than Earth. It also has more mass than Uranus. Even though it has more mass, Neptune is denser than Uranus. This is because it is smaller than Uranus. The greater mass of Neptune causes its atmosphere to be compressed more by gravity.

The planet was named after the Roman god of the sea, Neptune. The astronomical symbol for Neptune is ♆, the trident of the god Neptune.

The atmosphere of Neptune is mostly made up of hydrogen and helium. It also has small amounts of methane. This is what makes the planet look blue. Neptune's blue color is much darker than the color of Uranus. Neptune also has the strongest winds of any planet in the Solar System. Winds on Neptune can reach as high as 2,100 km/h (1,300 mph).

Astronomers Urbain Le Verrier and John Couch Adams discovered Neptune. It was the first planet to be discovered by mathematical calculations instead of a telescope. In 1821, it was seen that the orbit of Uranus was not what it was expected to be. This meant that the gravity of another object was affecting it. The source of this gravity was learned to be Neptune.

The planet has only been visited by one spacecraft. Voyager 2 visited the planet on 25 August 1989. At one time, Neptune had a huge storm known as the "Great Dark Spot". The storm was discovered in 1989 by Voyager 2. The dark spot was not seen in 1994 (what was looking at that time?) . New spots have been found since that time. It is not known why the dark spot disappeared. Visits by other space probes have been planned.[who?] 

--Creol(talk) 07:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Creol, Thank you for comment. Refs in intro were until Lallint did the citelead implementation. Read discussion higher. Frontfrog (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

proud to be a genuine contributor to a FA! Lallint (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh wait Lallint (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was the citelead addition good or bad for the article? This stuff is all mentioned and cited in the lead, as it should be, but it wasnt like that until I did the edit Lallint (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only issue with the lead seems to be the lack of explanation Lallint (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this your change -

Moved some citations out of the lead and added the information into the rest of the article and cited those claims (22 March 2022). Frontfrog (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[change source]

"The structure inside Neptune is thought to be similar to the structure inside Uranus".[41]

Comment: What's that, then?

"There is likely to be a core, thought to be about 15 Earth masses".[1] :Comment: It's not likely, it's absolutely certain on basic physics considerations. What is unknown are the details. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Science[change source]

  1. Introduction is quite good.
  2. "But in the depths of planet the temperature rises slowly. The source of this heating is unknown."

I don't think this is quite true. Because we don't know absolutely everything, it doesn't follow that we know nothing. The only two sources for the planet's hot interior are: gravitational collapse in planetary formation, and radioactivity. I'd be fascinated to hear any other ideas! The content of the core must contain heavy elements which are usually radioactive. Since Neptune is so huge, its core will still be very hot. "cooling of the Earth's interior (about 100 degrees Celsius per billion years)" (En wiki). Neptune, much more massive, certainly still has a very hot core.

I was quite happy with this being a good article, but not a very good article. I've just given a taste of why it would not be a good idea to promote it further. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But we could the statements more correct. Frontfrog (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it's not a good idea to promote it further yet. The article can still show some improvement. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 22:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

size and mass[change source]

Of all the known planets, both those in the solar system and all exoplanets discovered, how is Neptune #4? Its doubtful Jupiter is even in the top 10. Fourth largest in the solar system, sure. That's not what the article says though. It may imply it, but it doesn't actually say it. Articles need to say what they mean, not make the reader assume the intent of the information. --Creol(talk) 21:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite so. When we make these statements we need to be clear they refer to the Solar System only. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intro tweaking[change source]

The introduction currently has no references at all. "It is the fourth largest planet and third heaviest," is probably not strictly true, as mentioned above, so that should get fixed. Words like "contains", "appear" could be simplified. Words like "orbit" could be linked to another article. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 01:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information in the lead repeats what is already in the article – see WP:CITELEAD. I don't object adding any citations to the lead, but it should not be done excessively. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's true, but I do like having general citations in the lead, as it is generally useful for general overviews to know where the info is coming from. because of citelead, false info can be more sneakily placed IMO MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 02:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who implemented the citelead, I personally think that it makes the lead easier to read, unless there is one at the end of each line. Policy is policy (The policy only started on simplewiki recently, though) Lallint (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lallint What are you talking about? That is not policy at all. Not only is a guideline(different from a policy), but it falls under WP:ENWIKI which makes it mostly a suggestion. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explained it poorly, what I meant was I was the one who did the citelead implementation, but I think that it makes it easier to read unless the citation is at the end of every line, and I have faith that fake information will be reverted in the extremely unlikely situation that such is added Lallint (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, and false information is probably our biggest problem with hundreds of unreverted cases of this every month. I don't really know what you mean when you say that it's harder to read with citations because there are citations are in the rest of the article. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 23:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Text[change source]

I think the text is well written at the moment, isn't it? Frontfrog (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some first comments[change source]

Well, I think the decision to put all sources in the body of the article is one which deserved a wider discussion. If you had a wider discussion you might have had suggestions that the intro should be shorter and crisper.

Is it true that you really think a phrase like: "It is the fourth largest planet and third heaviest" is suitable for VGA? For heaven's sake, don't you know the difference between weight and mass? Weight is a completely meaningless word here; celestial objects have mass, because that is a universal property of matter.

On the subject of planets' cores, their temperature is most likely due to radioactive elements. All the higher elements are radioactive, got originally from early supergiant explosions. Remember, the planets are nothing to do with the Sun (except they happen to have been picked up). This explanation can't actually be proved at present, but it's a reasonable hypothesis. You can add any other hypothesis in the literature. For which you need sources. I'm against making statements without sources, especially in view of the weight/mass confusion. Oh, oh, I see "occulted". If you think our readership will know that word, think again! Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't know what occulted means... (I looked it up. And now I know) --Creol(talk) 03:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Obscured/hit" right words to "occulted" or maybe "overshadowed"? Frontfrog (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it to "moved in front of". "Passed in front of" would also work but move is a bit easier to understand than pass. Used in it more common verb form and all that while pass could be "moved past" or "passed the ball" and move is actually in the description of pass. New question though. It says it occulted/covered/moved in front of "the star". The? shouldn't it be "a" or it it one particular star? If so, that star should be named. Is it the Sun? that would be a "the" star but still should be named. --Creol(talk) 03:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see En wiki has a page "Occultation". It gives the definition: "an event that occurs when one object is hidden by another object that passes between it and the observer". In other words, it's a subjective term tied to human observation. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intro 2[change source]

Please, return sources in intro. See relative articles with FGA - Jupiter or Saturn. Frontfrog (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP rules, sources may be confined to the body of the article so long as the same sources appear at relevant places lower down. We don't have any discussion on this wiki which would contradict this. You would have to raise it on a central Simple page to discuss it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere[change source]

I don't see our treatment of "For reasons that remain obscure, the planet's thermosphere is at an anomalously high temperature of about 750 K." (last para of WP article under "Atmosphere"). Now, we don't have to actually solve problems, but GAs/VGAs are not expected to evade issues that are discomforting. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still flawed[change source]

Under "mass and composition" I see the word "heaviest". I've already made the point months ago, but here it still is, looking at me! Also "similar masses "like Neptune" is grotesque. Use "as" or "to", "far distance" should be "great distance".

Again, the statement that "The source of this [the temperature of the core] heating is unknown". I repeat, this is not entirely so. We do know it must be partly due to the radioactivity in the core, and the compression under huge gravity. It goes on to suggest "gravity waves breaking above the troposphere"!! That'll stun 'em! Seriously, would you care to explain how that works? No? Well, I'm not surprised. I don't know either, but it's a good idea not to copy things you don't understand.

The En wiki version has some good material on Neptune's orbit, and on the planet's possible movement outwards in the Solar System since its inception. I signalled earlier that planetary astronomy has undergone something of a revolution this century. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u for ur comment. I'll probably do it in the near future. Frontfrog (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

En wiki on Earth (!) makes it clear that our ~6,000 °C core is produced by potassium-40, uranium-238, and thorium-232. If all planets are formed in a similar way, then they all have radioactive cores. There is an En wiki page "Earth's internal heat budget", which it says "comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of Earth". Also very interesting is "Despite its geological significance, Earth's interior heat contributes only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation". Lastly: "solar radiation [is] minimally relevant for processes internal to Earth's crust".
Amazingly, there is such a thing as the International Heat Flow Commission of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior. (!!) Seriously, I feel I learnt a lot from this, which I only vaguely understood before. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summing up: doubtful as a GA as it does not represent the science accurately enough. Absolutely not a credible VGA candidate. Macdonald-ross|Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image under "Weather and magnetic field" is ridiculous. It's far, far too wide. We are being read (often) by kids whose equipment can't show this kind of width. Why don't our editors see this and change it? Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far, far too complex for this wiki[change source]

Not simplified enough, and diagrams are a pain in the neck. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this is such a complicated page that it looks strange to have it in a wiki which calls itself "Simple". It's absolutely ridiculous (from that perspective) to have it promoted as GA. It needs to be cut back. The whole point of this wiki is not to have pages with this degree of verbal and diagrammatic complexity. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The label on top says "This article is a good article. This means the community feels it is written well". Include me out of that one! MMR.
@Macdonald-ross Ok. Stop that noise. Frontfrog (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an argument. I'm entitled to say what I think, and your comment is just rude. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I mean that if you want, you can remove the label. Sorry if it sounds rude. I thought noise means like something slangy. And your language is also quite straight. Frontfrog (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frontfrog: I think Macdonald-ross read your comment to mean something like "shut up", so it looks like a misunderstanding. --IWI (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross Can you explain why it's too complex? Is it the wording, or the content, or are you talking about the infobox? And if it's the content, than which section(s) are you concerned with? Lights and freedom (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was easier to make changes than describe them! But it is still a complex page, which may well be because so few facts have been definitely established. I've not compared it with the En wiki version, which should be done. It is the planet about which we have least data. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we don't have a lot of facts in comparison with other planets. Neptune and Uranus were formed how? That is an unanswered question. Matter density should not have led to such large planets so far from the Sun. Ref: Boss, Alan P. (2002). "Formation of gas and ice giant planets". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 202 (3–4): 513–23. Bibcode:2002E&PSL.202..513B. doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(02)00808-7. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it (not my field of study):
  • If Neptune formed where it is now, it should have been a lot smaller. Also some of the things father out (planetoids, plutoids,...) have highly irregular orbits. If Neptune formed where it is now, there are problems explaining these orbits.
  • If it didn't form where it is now, it must have moved to its current position. This could explain the irregular orbits, but to my knowledge there's no model that could explain this movement. Moving around the sun means that the orbit needs some very specific parameters. Even if you don't think circle, but ellipise, there's very little "leeway" for the movement to change. Simulating this means you need a model first, which means you need to be able to express your idea in mathematical terms. The three body problem can only be solved in very specific cases; and we are looking at an n-body problem. So we are at "It formed elsewhere, and by chance, zillions of years later it is where it is". Magic?
  • AFAIK there are a few problems as to the moons (which rotate in the wrong direction, in some cases, and which are far too close in others).
If we try making this a good or very good article, we need to explain what we know in simple language, and we need to be able to point to references, where these things get explained.Given the non-negligible distances, I think the images/measurements we have are from 20-30 years ago.A signal from Neptune to earth will take minutes, iirc. Eptalon (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looked it up, the images we have are from Voyager 2, mostly, so from 1989 or 1990. Travel time, at light speed: 4h 15min. (30 times the distance sun-earth) - I think the signals took like 12 hrs... Eptalon (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 PVGA comments[change source]

@Ferien and Frontfrog: Aside from the things I mentioned at WP:PVGA (mention the effect of Neptune on the Kuiper belt, Neptune trojans, the gravity on the surface of Neptune, maybe its formation, and maybe the Raleigh scattering; simplification in general, and particularly of "Crediting and naming"), I have a few other suggestions:

  1. Might be good to add that Neptune has a similar axial tilt to Earth, so it will have seasons like Earth (although they last much longer).
  2. I don't think John Herschel convinced Challis to search for the planet. It seems to have been Airy who asked Challis. I'm not sure Herschel needs to be mentioned.
  3. There is no source for this: "It was found 1° from where Le Verrier had thought it would be. It was about 10° from Adams' prediction." According to enwiki, Adams' prediction was wrong by 12°, but there is no source there either.
  4. It says "The average surface temperature on Neptune is about -201°C". This is not actually the surface temperature, but the temperature at the point where atmospheric pressure is 1 bar/ 1 Atm.
  5. "the friction and ram pressure of the diamond hail heats up the planet" appears before the falling diamonds are discussed. I'm not sure if this is an issue, but it might be a little confusing.
  6. The core is predicted to be about the same mass as Earth (according to enwiki, 1.2 Earth masses). Not 15 Earth masses.
  7. Maybe the temperature and/or pressure in the core or mantle should be mentioned?
  8. In "Neptune's rings", information in the first paragraph is repeated in the second and third paragraphs. (Incomplete = not completely formed, and the "clumpy appearance" refers to the arcs.) Repetition should be removed.
  9. "The Liberté ring may disappear in less than 100 years": Liberté is an arc (a segment of a ring), not a ring.
  10. "The moon was credited for causing Neptune's ring arcs when Voyager 2 observed Neptune in 1989": this was simplified incorrectly. It should say: it was thought that the ring arcs had covered a star, but when Voyager 2 visited, it was found that Larissa had covered the star.
  11. If more info is added about Neptune's orbit, this topic can be moved out of the observation section.

I hope this helps! Lights and freedom (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda There is a reason arc was used instead of ring. They mean different things. Also, this doesn't make sense: "Voyager 2 is the only spacecraft visited Neptune on 25 August 1989. It is the only spacecraft that visited the planet." Lights and freedom (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted this because it was wrong. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the historical aspects are well treated, but the present-day science is weak. I mentioned on another page that the arrangement of the Solar System is now known to be peculiar. We are a long way from a good understanding of this. At the moment we don't know how or why Neptune is where it is. We can't just ignore this because it will be mentioned on other pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have a question that might look innocent, but isn't (also look at my comment in the section above). Do you think there's a reasonable chance we get this into a form where we could vote for it to become VGA, and that vote would a have a realistic chance of passing (5 votes, 3 of them in favor)? Eptalon (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A worthwhile question, but you ask it at a time when solar and planetary research is very active. Which of us is in touch here? Maybe none. I've taken the risk of summarising the travels of Jupiter, but those very travels have affected almost all the other planets. It may be years before that is really sorted out. I think we have no-one who reads the original literature. I'm not keen to see us with VGAs which turn out to be fundamentally wrong or omitting significant facts. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article date[change source]

We had no article on Uranus before 2015, That seems extraordinary. Surely that can't be right. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Oh, I see it goes back to 2003, but doesn't show it voluntarily! Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language aspect[change source]

Recently I bolded a few words that I considered difficult. But they were ignored (no more bold). What do you think about language here at all? Is the language clear enough? Frontfrog (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien Do you want to seriously improve the article in this weekend? The time to close the nomination is coming. Frontfrog (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through the article a little bit at the moment and hope to improve it more over the next few days. --Ferien (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decision time[change source]

For me, this is a good article, which for reasons above is not a VGA. It is weakest in its discussion of the internal structure. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally![change source]

It finally got very good article! Also i was fixing a reference something a long days ago before got featured. Bakhos2010 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neptune&oldid=9308464"