Wikipedia:Peer review/243 Ida/archive1

243 Ida

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 March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone major improvements, and I would like to know if there are any remaining issues that need to be addressed before sending it to FAC.

Thanks, Wronkiew (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chzz

Requesting user stated intent to obtain FA, so I've been quite picky; as always, this is IMHO.

Over all, it looks like a good article, certainly with potential for FA.

I've made various minor changes made, per MOS etc; fixed up referencing tags and changed a covenience link; DABs; changed picture in infobox (got the original TIF (higher quality), and cropped some of the black out of the border); see diffs from Chzz dated 26 March 2009.

The infobox has [[Dactyl (moon)|Dactyl]] which is a redirect to a section within the article; I'm not sure if that is recommended - but may become irrelevent because;
Link removed. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC) OK -- Chzz ► 20:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The TOC is very long; WP:WIAFA - see Wikipedia:Summary style - I would suggest that the moon section be split off into a separate article. I think that there is enough material on the topic to start a new article, and that doing so would make this article more balanced.
I disagree, not enough reference material on the moon exists to make it a standalone article. I combined some of the subsections to reduce the complexity of the TOC. Also, the prose size of the article is not outside the recommended bounds specified in WP:SIZE. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can agree to disagree on that; I see the existing sections on the moon as ample for a reasonable article, as is. See how it goes with FA. -- Chzz ► 20:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed redlink reflection spectra to Stellar classification#Spectral types - Is that the best redirect for this link?
No, I changed it back. Reflection spectra is the difference between the illumination spectra and the measured spectra. Stellar spectroscopy does not involve reflection. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, as long as you think that an article on the topic could be written (per WP:MOS#Red links) -- Chzz ► 20:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check image alignment (I haven't had time yet)
I think all the images are aligned correctly. Most of them are right-aligned so they don't interfere with subsection headings. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add more wikilinks - not many, for an article of this size
Done. I found some interesting articles that I hadn't thought to link to. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly better; I'll try to look through it all again -- Chzz ► 20:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re. File:NWA869Meteorite.jpg - the previous (2nd) version looks sharper (especially in the reduced-size on the page); see here
Disagree on this one. I like the third version better. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC) OK -- Chzz ► 20:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The animated gif may need further info to explain the rotation seen
Added this to the caption. Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re. File:Galileo trajectory Ida.svg - Confusing with "Earth" duplicated; not clear which dot refers to which Earth position; could it be clarified?
I uploaded a new version with a single Earth label, although the thumbnail hasn't updated yet. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, better. I'm still unclear why there are 2 dates for earth? -- Chzz ► 20:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Galileo flew by Earth twice on the way to Jupiter, for extra Δv. I would appreciate any ideas about how to make this more clear. Wronkiew (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about a colour-coded legend at the bottom of the image? Something like: blue dot=launch, green dot=gravity assisted flyby, etc. Reyk _YO! 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-This is very much a partial look through. I intend to look over the grammar more later. Thanks, -- Chzz ► 15:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worth uploading and adding (a crop of) this image -- Chzz ► 19:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 facts in the lede but don't seem to be in the body:
"a member of the Koronis family of main-belt asteroids."
This is in the first sentence of the "Orbit and rotation" section, and in the infobox. Reyk _YO! 01:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes - I missed that, sorry. That's fine then. -- Chzz ► 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It was the second asteroid to be visited by a spacecraft" - Gaspra is mentioned, but not the fact of first/second
Found a source for this and added it to the flyby section. Wronkiew (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Para beginning "Ida's orbit around the Sun..." uses the word 'mass' too often
Fixed. Reyk _YO! 01:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Discovery and observations" - prose needs work; awkward syntax. Also maybe too short as a section.
I added some more info to this section, but I didn't find many improvements to make in the prose. Anythink specific? Wronkiew (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exploration/Galileo flyby - too many short choppy sentences
Re. "A new NASA policy that encouraged outer Solar System missions to evaluate asteroid flybys led to the selection of these two asteroids as targets.

I think this is wrong; they wouldn't evaluate the flyby, they would evaluate the asteroid.
They did evaluate the flyby, as NASA required. The asteroid wasn't evaluated until after the flyby. Wronkiew (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked this to eliminate the confusing phrase. Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also repetiton of 'asteroid' could perhaps be avoided. In fact, this whole section needs a bit of work on the prose - I've had a go just now, but it needs more.

m/pixel maybe better written out as "megapixel", and wikilinked
m/pixel means "metres per pixel", but you're right about wikilinking it. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discoveries

"possible compositions included" sounds odd to me; perhaps "theories" or "speculation" or somesuch. I sort-of understand, I suppose these compositions matched the profile of the spectrogaph? Maybe this could be elaborated upon.
I've reworded this a bit.
Is "stony-iron" another term from this field? Is it just Iron with a high stone content?
It's an established term for a particular type of meteorite. I think it's stone with a high iron content. Wronkiew (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weathering - "This superficial process" - I think it's not the process that is superficial, but its effect?
Changed "This superficial process" to "Space weathering". The word "process" came up in three consecutive sentences anyway. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"although Dactyl showed less of a change." - maybe "although Dactyl showed a lesser change."?
Done.Reyk _YO! 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to explain the red colour? What causes it? Oxidation?
Not enough is known about this process to offer a definite explanation. Part of the problem is that this process takes millions of years, and we have few images of in-between stages. It's probably not oxidation. Wronkiew (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the reflection spectra of newer, unweathered parts" - I don't understand why parts are newer (and, later, older)
Fixed. Reyk _YO! 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Both discoveries, the effects of space weathering on Ida and the measurement of its density, led to a new understanding" - I don't like the sentence structure; perhaps "Both of these discoveries - the space weathering effects and the low density - led to a new understanding..."
Your version is clearer. Changed. Reyk _YO! 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the reflection " - is it possible to reword this part to avoid starting a sentence with "However"?
I've moved the "however" from the start of the sentence to near the middle. Reyk _YO! 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Galileo flyby of Ida found, for the first time, that some S-type asteroids, in particular those of the Koronis family, could be the source of these meteorites.[31]" - too many subclauses, hard to follow.
I removed the "for the first time" subclause, because I'm not even sure what it means. Reyk _YO! 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Chzz ► 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass, "A vehicle moving in excess of 20 m/s (40 mph) " - Why a vehicle? Maybe "An object" is better. Also seems like a mismatch of units; maybe the first should be kph. Perhaps "an object...would reach escape veloicy" - with a wikilink - would be better.
Changed mph to ft/s, changed "vehicle" to "object" and I added a wikilink to escape velocity. Reyk _YO! 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I liked mph because it was a more familiar unit for non-specialists. Wronkiew (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"unintuitive" - I think 'counterintuitive' might be a better word
I agree. Done. Reyk _YO! 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shape - "the best-fit triaxial ellipsoid" - maybe "a best-fit..."; also perhaps wikilink triaxial
The source says the best-fit and if my hazy memory of uni maths serves me correctly, I believe best-fit ellipsoids are uniquely determined. I agree with you in principle that triaxial should be wikilinked, but it's a redirect to ellipsoid, so that would be pointless. Reyk _YO! 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Structures - "Region 2 contains nearly all of the large (>6 kilometres (3.7 mi)) ones but Region 1 has no large craters at all." - syntax of this is a bit odd; could it be reworded to avoid the double brackets, and the > abbreviation?
The inner brackets are a result of the unit conversion template. I have expanded the contents of the outer brackets so that it's clearer and the double brackets aren't as glaring. Reyk _YO! 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Craters - perhaps swap the 2 paragraphs around so that names are explained before the named Choukoutien is mentioned
I agree. Done. Reyk _YO! 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"other Solar System " - I don't think this should be in initial capitals?
Solar System appears several times in the article, always capitalised. Should we change them all, or leave them be? Reyk _YO! 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked this, and I'm wrong. It should always have the 2 caps. At least, that's what a few other folk told me, and a quick advanced search seems to back it up. So - forget that one; I stand corrected. -- Chzz ► 00:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I won't look at the 'moon' section in detail at this stage; as I said, I think it should probably be a separate article (With a 'see main article').

Also, I have not checked the references and wikilinks.

I hope this has proved constructive; overall, whilst I certainly think that it has the potential to become an FA, I would suggest getting as much more input as possible vith a view to improving the prose towards an 'excellent' level. Also - without researching it myself - I wonder about the overall bias towards information from Gallileo; I appreciate that much of our knowledge of the object must come from that image, but perhaps it would be possible to detail a little more on analysis that took place prior to the Gallileo missions.

Best of luck, -- Chzz ► 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the information we have about Ida came from the Galileo flyby. Considering how many asteroids exist in the Solar System and how few have been visited, it is highly unlikely that it will be studied at that level of depth for the forseeable future. Well, except for this plan to nuke it from orbit. Wronkiew (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Serendi ^pod ous 14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections should have introductory paragraphs. Either that, or remove the subsection headings.
I removed the subsection headings for one of the shorter sections. The only one that still has subsections without a summary is "Exploration". I think the current layout is fine, and I have not had trouble with this sort of formatting at FAC. Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanatroy footnotes like those below should be included in a separate "Notes" section, using the Note_label format, not the references section.
I found no explanatory footnotes in the references section. Can you give me an example of a note that should be moved? Wronkiew (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally for planet/minor planet articles, Orbit info goes at the top while exploration info goes at the bottom.
This article is formatted this way because so much of what is known about the asteroid came from the Galileo flyby. I could go either way, though. Reyk? Wronkiew (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good either way as well. Reyk _YO! 21:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions that Dactyl's surface gravity is known, which means its mass should be known as well, but there is no indication of what its mass is.
I think that was a wild guess on the part of the source's author. I removed the surface gravity info. Wronkiew (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJH (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some single paragraph sections that should perhaps be merged into other sections.
I merged two of the short subsections in the surface features section. The remaining single paragraph sections are the origin sections for Dactyl and Ida. I haven't thought of a better way to organize these. Wronkiew (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Although its orbital period of 4.84 years is longer than the Earth's, its rotation period of 4.63 hours is shorter." This comparison with the Earth seems odd. A comparison with a typical main belt asteroid's rotation period would be more useful.
Removed the odd comparison. Wronkiew (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is vague and applies to virtually all main belt asteroids: "its mass constitutes an insignificant fraction of the belt's total."
I like this one. It provides a sense of scale. Wronkiew (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Its low density indicates that it is depleted of metallic minerals." Has porosity been ruled out?
I think this gets a little too far into meteoritics to be included in the article, but a stony-iron composition would require Ida to have >40% empty space, which is considered unstable even for a rubble pile. Wronkiew (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should explain the number 243.
- I don't think it's explicitly mentioned in the sources, but I have included a link to List of minor planets#Numbering_and_naming_conventions which explains asteroid numbering conventions in general. Reyk _YO! 06:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Ida's ... fast rotation, is responsible for the asteroid's highly uneven gravitational field." How is the rotation rate responsible for an uneven gravitational field?
Whoops, I seem to have misread that sentence in the source. Fixed. Reyk _YO! 06:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything known about the precession of Ida?
Found a source for this and added it. Wronkiew (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you everyone for your help improving the article. It certainly looks (and reads) a lot better than it did when we started this peer review. If no one has any additional comments in the next few days, we're going to take it over to FAC. Wronkiew (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck with that; if I can contribute to that process, give me a shout on my talk. Chzz ► 01:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the peer review, thanks again everyone! Wronkiew (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]