Talk:3 Juno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 3 Juno has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
November 2, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Solar System (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.


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...

size rank[edit]

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)

GA criteria suggestions[edit]

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)

Both images and planetary status are now addressed.Michaelbusch 21:47, 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)

Since no-one is really sure what a 'dwarf planet' is, we cannot say if Vesta and Pallas are. Neither is particularly close to hydrostatic equilibrium


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

I added an image to 3 Juno, it's the view of Juno from Celestia, is it ok?. Cause theres nothing from the Hubblesite -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Celestia? Shimgray | talk | 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I will produce a larger (non-cropped) version of the animation, as was requested. I don't know about the Celestia image. This image is pure speculation, is it not? Awolf002 13:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The Celestia image is pure speculation, using the standard Celestia asteroid texture.The Singing Badger 13:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Plus it's spherical, which really doesn't help matters... Shimgray | talk | 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
But thats how Celestia's creators view it, spherical, I'm just saying it's the view from celstia. -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 03:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, we don't know many things about Juno, and we don't really know what it looks like. We do, however, know what it doesn't look like - it isn't a sphere like the Celestia image. Sure, any image is better than nothing, but not if that image is actively misleading... Shimgray | talk | 18:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the celestia image is misleading, and should unfortunately be removed. In fact, we do have images of Juno (see the discussion right below), and they're not at all similar. Deuar 15:39, 7 September 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)

There's a real nice image over at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, taken by the Mt. Wilson telescope. Only question is how to get its copy into the article without a copyright zealot deleting it since it's not from a NASA or gov website. Perhaps it counts as fair use (I'd agree with that, at least), or else maybe permission from the authors can be obtained? Deuar 12:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded this image twice, because under the terms of an SAO press release it is public domain with proper attribution. It was deleted twice. Perhaps I did not specify the copyright properly. Would one of you like to try? The image is being used on at least one other Wikipedia.Michaelbusch 14:47, 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)

This looks like it requires sending some sort of email to them asking nicely, and hoping. Deuar 15:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The image concerned is in an SAO press release, meaning that it is intended to be freely distributed with proper attribution, assuming fair use. Does that make it GDFL compliant? Michaelbusch 00:15, 8 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)

Fictional References?[edit]

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? 13:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not here. For that sort of information we have Asteroids in fiction. Michaelbusch 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Artist's conception of 3 Juno[edit]

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)

If you are doing this, could you also ask for the actual images of Juno to be released as well? They are preferable to both an unresolved speck and any artist's concept. Michaelbusch 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'll definitely be asking for permission to use the actual images in addition to the artist's concept. I too would prefer to use an actual image in place of a drawing. However, while the artist's concept was created by the director of their Public Affairs office, the actual images were published in Baliunas (2003), so they may not be able to be as accommodating with them. —RP88 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Good luck! I'm crossing all appendages. Deuar 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
All appendages?! Lexicon (talk) 22:27, 19 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. 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)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:3 Juno/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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.

  1. Is a reference available for the first paragraph of the "Characteristics" section? In particular the "newest estimates" needs a reference. In addition, "newest estimates" is not a good phrase to use because it is vague will become dated. Stating who made the estimate and/or when it was made avoids this problem.
  2. "the honour of being the largest" isn't particularly encyclopedic prose. Can this be rephrased?
  3. Is a wikilink for "eccentricity" available?
  4. Is a reference available for the paragraph beginning with "Juno orbits at a slightly closer..."?
  5. I think the "Observations" section would work better as prose than as a bullet list.
  6. Can the Yeomans site be moved to the "External links" section? I'm not sure what it is doing at the top of the "References" list.
  7. Similar articles have sections like "Surface features" and "Geology". Is any of this information available for this article?

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.

  1. Yes, we need a ref for the 1% figure. My bad; I added that and don't recall the source. Shouldn't be too hard to track down. Wording probs fixed.
  2. fixed
  3. fixed
  4. Such factoids are derived from the info box. As long as the info box is properly sourced, we don't need to separately source the figures in the text. Orbits are very well established, so a comparison with the orbits of the other asteroids should suffice.
  5. Indeed. fixed
  6. fixed
  7. The last paragraph of 'characteristics'. I have my doubts that it's worth splitting off a separate section for only three lines.

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)

A reference for Eunomia and Juno as the two biggest S-type asteroids would help. Does this work? I found it in this article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. I'm going to change it from 'most massive' to largest, and also not try to say which is bigger, since I'm sure they're within 1 sig measurement error. kwami (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. kwami (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I'm going to close this review as a Keep. Thanks to everyone who helped. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

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)

Dead link 2[edit]

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)

Dead link 3[edit]

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)

Mass update[edit]

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)

Yes, I would say the article should use the latest figures. -- Kheider (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)