Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/90377 Sedna/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:18, 18 August 2010 [1].

90377 Sedna

90377 Sedna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • External links
Nominator(s): Kheider, Serendipodous 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone peer review and been prepped extensively for FA. Serendipodous 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 7 (Stephn Tegler...) lacks a publisher.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Issues fixed I think Serendipodous 20:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Mirokado (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • article: 10 tidy-up formatting suggestions from Advisor.js
I fixed the remaining trivia. Mirokado (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discovery and naming: "any future objects discovered in Sedna's orbit" implies "co-orbital" as far as I can tell. Is that really what is meant, or rather "any future objects with similar orbits"? ("Sedna-like orbits" are mentioned later in the article).
  • Orbit and rotation: The orbital diagram could lose the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus since they are too small to display to scale even at full size, they just clutter the diagram. Then you could have a yellow spot for the Sun (not to scale) if you wish...
--Not sure removing them is best. Many people such as myself prefer to see the 4 major planets. -- Kheider (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not something I will insist on. Mirokado (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physical characteristics: "....for methane ice ... for water ice. ... detected weak absorption bands belonging to the methane and nitrogen ices." Better to say "belonging to methane and nitrogen ices" because it is the first mention of nitrogen ice.
  • Physical characteristics: "... Sedna's surface temperature may rise above the 35.6 K (−237.4°C or −395.3°F) boundary ..." I don't think a temperature can rise above a boundary. How about "minumum" instead of "boundary"?
  • Classification: What is a Stern–Levison parameter? was my immediate reaction reading this. I think at least a piped wikilink to cleared the neighborhood even though that is also wikilinked, but probably to make the para understandable without jumps to other pages you need to rewrite it to have a clearer gloss for both the concept and the parameter name.
Issues resolved (except the picture) Serendipodous 07:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Supporting now. Please have a look at the notes section, though. In notes a and c there is a final line which is separated by a br tag. In note a, the br tag seems unnecessary and in note c that final formula could have a few words of text for context, with a period for the previous sentence? (That is in addition to a couple of tweaks I have just done.) Mirokado (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iridia

  • Comments To my eye, it needs a more comprehensive literature check. And the origin section in particular needs an overhaul (partly because this field changes quite rapidly). Plus the lead needs to be far more clear about why this is one of the most unusual and interesting objects in the Solar System. I'll go over it in detail in the next couple of days and see what I can do. Iridia (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the lead and added three new refs. Serendipodous 07:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginning readthrough. Will add more comments as I go through them. Iridia (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of discoverer names/affiliations in that sentence feels a bit over-linked for clear reading. Maybe that information doesn't need to be in the first sentence, in line with the leads of other featured TNO articles?
  • Move "as of 2010" and "Eris is..." sentences to a footnote. That information is far less relevant in that location: it's "For most of its orbit, Sedna is farther from the Sun than any other currently known dwarf planet candidate." that should be front and centre.
  • Regarding that just-mentioned sentence: can it be worded more strongly? It's actually the most-distant known object barring comets, not just of any dwarf planet-sized TNOs. The emphasis on its (uncertain) size is less important here.
  • There's no mention of Sedna's other physical properties in the lead: its red colour/surface composition should be mentioned.
I've given the lead a once-over. Let me know what you think. Serendipodous 09:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a major improvement. Looks good. Particularly like the way you've discussed why its size is uncertain & given a comparison. Iridia (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last point on the lead: the third paragraph states that the MPC classification is as a scattered disk object, but then in the next sentence states that Sedna can't be a SDO. Should probably sound less contradictory of the MPC there: perhaps emphasise with the wording used in the Classification section. Iridia (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Done. Serendipodous 09:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4 is incorrectly cited: it is a chapter in The Solar System Beyond Neptune. Would it then need to have page numbers to the citations?
done. Serendipodous 09:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put as "Astronomer Mike Brown" and wikilink in lead?
I'm not sure what you mean. Put what as astronomer Mike Brown? Serendipodous 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant the sentence should start with that, instead of starting with his unlinked name. Iridia (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 07:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discovery and naming: first para: "which indicated a distance of about 100 AU." Would read better as "which indicated that its distance was about 100 AU."
  • Worth mentioning that the reason Sedna needed to be identified on older images was so that the length of known arc of its orbit could be extended, improving the orbit fit.
  • "Sedna, the Inuit goddess of the sea, who was believed to live in the cold depths of the Arctic Ocean." Should not be past tense: perhaps also expand a little more from the citation, which has very nice wording.
  • That citation should also be added as the citation for the sentence: it is not in the article yet.
Specifically, it should be here: "The MPC formally accepted the name in September 2004". It can be a citation without having a direct url attached, since the website won't link directly to it. Iridia (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 07:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it might allow names to be announced in future before they were officially numbered." "in future" should be after "it might".
Iridia (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orbit and rotation: I've rearranged and combined some material. Iridia (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Issues addressed. Serendipodous 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 doesn't have a year of publication.
Done. Serendipodous 08:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns with the choices of source material for referencing some statements.
  • Ref 26 is a conference paper abstract. While those are probably appropriate for citing announcements of discoveries, in this field they are less appropriate for mentioning as expressions of an author's position on a topic (unlike, say, in computer science). That is normally done through peer-reviewed articles, which are written with more time taken...
Subbed Sasata's ref (thank you Sasata!) Serendipodous 07:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35 should be removed, and its citations replaced by citations to the peer-reviewed articles on that survey, which are already references.
That ref is citing information that is, as far as I can tell, unique to it; specifically the effects on a population of the various formation scenarios. Serendipodous 07:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see only two chapters in The Solar System Beyond Neptune referenced, with no page numbers, where some chapters are 20+ pages. That book is the most recent comprehensive overview available, with field-wide author diversity. It should be used a lot more, as it is a secondary source, and the article is relying heavily on primary sources, some of which supersede each other. Iridia (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both those references have page numbers. I'll skim the book but keep in mind that it's basically a collection of primary sources, not all of which are about Sedna.Serendipodous 07:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata

  • Comments A well-written article on an interesting but technical subject. I enjoyed it, and was able to understand it. Some comments/questions/suggestions: Sasata (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: All concerns below addressed satisfactorily. I believe the article meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref formatting needs some tightening. E.g., current ref #23 (B. Scott Gaudi et al.) has author names that are not the same as the ones given in the doi link. Also, the issue# is missing. Several other articles are missing issue #'s that are available from the linked doi's. last ref (Soter 2006) needs hyphen replaced with endash. Ref #39 gives 1 author and et al (unitalicized), compared to ref #44 which gives three authors. Shouldn't Discover magazine have magazine capitalized?
  • M. Brown is called both Michael and Mike in the lead.
  • link Solar System in lead?
  • If the angle symbol° is going to be linked in the infobox, it should be at first occurrence.
  • I noticed that the Infobox "Argument of perihelion' links to "Argument of periapsis", which, according that that article's lead, is known as the "argument of perifocus" or the "argument of pericenter"… but not as the Argument of perihelion. Are they all the same thing?
  • imperial conversions for km distances in "Physical characteristics" section?
  • theorized - Brit or Am English?
  • three times Sedna's "spectrum" is mentioned, but it is not clarified what kind of spectrum this is. Similarly, absorption bands should be linked or gloss.
  • "However, its deep red spectrum is indicative of high concentrations of organic material on its surface" What is meant by "organic material" here - carbon-containing compounds?
  • link relative velocity
  • italicize et al. (or maybe even better, use "and colleagues"; I thought the use of et al. and similar in prose was to be avoided?)
  • I noticed the unit Kelvin not linked in the article but perhaps should be to accommodate younger students who may be reading
  • "for another estimated 12 thousand years." This is given numerically in the lead, why should it be different here?
  • In the equation in the notes, I don't understand why squared is written as "^2" instead of a superscript
  • anything useful to add from these articles?
Title: Regarding the accretion of 2003 VB12 (Sedna) and like bodies in distant heliocentric orbits
Author(s): Stern, SA
Source: ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL Volume: 129 Issue: 1 Pages: 526-529 Published: JAN 2005
Title: Stellar perturbations on the scattered disk
Author(s): Rickman, H; Froeschle, C; Froeschle, C, et al.
Source: ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Volume: 428 Issue: 2 Pages: 673-681 Published: DEC 2004

Thank you for the advice. Most issues resolved (except the "Issue" issue, which will take me a day or so). A few caveats:

  • "Argument of perihelion" is mentioned in the article, but not in the lead.
  • It is not customary to use imperial in scientific articles, since science uses metric exclusively
  • I agree with your second point, but not necessarily the first. However, after checking several other related FACs this article seems to be consistent in not giving imperial converts for kilometers, so that's good enough for me. Sasata (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your sources, the first cites the same information as ref# 27, while the second concerns the dynamics of scattered disc objects, and Sedna is not an SDO. So I don't think they're necessary, but thanks anyway. Serendipodous 08:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Issue" issue resolved, I think Serendipodous 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, unless Iridia (who knows more about this field than I) still thinks that the underlying lit search is dated - Serendipodous appears to have made some useful additions of new content and refs from last couple of years since Iridia's comment above. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - beginning a read-through now. I'll make some copyedits as I go and jot queries below reads alot smoother than other planet articles I have read here, no issues apart from minor query below. Well done: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, Sedna never comes close enough to Neptune - would perfect tense "However, Sedna has never come close enough to Neptune.." be better, to indicate what it's done in the past as well as current?
Personally, I don't think so; the perfect tense implies that while it has not come close to Neptune in the past, it may do so in future. That isn't the case here. Serendipodous 06:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll concede on this "tense standoff" ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second query: have the nominators done anything to obtain in image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable question, so i reviewed them myself. The short version of the stream-of-consciousness rambles below is: all OK.
  • File:Ssc2004-05b.jpg - this is a Spitzer Science Centre image (SSC), and the credits list is: "NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC-Caltech)". When one clicks through to the image use policy, it states in part "Some image and video materials on Spitzer public web sites are owned by organizations other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech, JPL, and NASA is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image." My query was whether the naming of R. Hurt in the credits is meant to imply some copyright independently of Caltech, or whether it is intended merely to assert the artist's moral rights but, as an employee of Caltech, no copyright rights. My judgement is the latter, and that the image is OK, but I'm noting this just in case someone else has a different view.
  • File:Web print-1-.jpg - this file is inappropriately named, but that is not an issue for the FAC. I initially had a similar concern about this image as the one above: this one is credited as "NASA, ESA and Adolf Schaller". However, on the image itself (see here) it says the painting was done for NASA / STSci. Hubblesite copyright notice states in part "A catalogue of HST publicly released images on this site may be found at the following location: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/. If the credit line for an image lists STScI as the source, the image may be freely used as in the public domain as noted above." I checked that archive, and this is indeed one of the images found there. So I do not think Adolf Schaller retains any separate copyright.
Others seemed fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A slightly vexing case. Image is indeed on the Palomar site, which says all images are "attributed to" the respective photographers and are "under copyright" (but whose copyright is not stated). The NASA/JPL site also hosts a version of the same image, and credits it merely to "NASA/Caltech", which, if the copyright belonged to the individual photographer, would be inaccurate - and it seems unlikely to me that NASA would have this wrong. One suspects that on the strength of the image policy for NASA/JPL, the image has now been widely reproduced (eg. by BBC). I don't want to make a call on this one - i've not enough experience. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could the nominators please get this resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what it is you want us to resolve. The image is listed on a NASA site as a NASA photo credit. All NASA photo credits are in the public domain. Serendipodous 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try contacting an experienced image reviewer, such as Elcobbola (talk · contribs), Jappalang (talk · contribs) or Stifle (talk · contribs) for another opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That "the NASA/JPL site also hosts a version of the same image" is incorrect. The NASA image is not the same as the uploaded image (note the bright object to the left of Sedna is below Sedna in the NASA image(s), but well above it in the uploaded image). The uploaded image is from Caltech and, as the source is a direct link to the image itself (a problem in itself), there's no authorship attribution. In the absence of such attribution, we need to follow the site's general policy, which says "all images are under copyright". The solution seems to be to replace the image with the version from the NASA site, which has a compatible policy. Эlcobbola talk 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record the NASA version is just a cropped and rotated version of the original Palomar image. (Wikisky image of this region that matches NASA orientation) -- Kheider (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support but fix these:

  • "Sedna will overtake Eris as the farthest presently known dwarf planet candidate in 2114." Eris is not a candidate.
I don't think we can win with that one. Unless you can come up with a word that encompasses both dwarf planets and potential dwarf planets. Serendipodous 11:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, came up with one. But it's pretty stupid. Serendipodous 11:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "presently-known minor planet" correct? Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor planet 2000 CR105 will be further from the Sun (114.7AU) than Eris or Sedna in 2114. I changed it to "spherical minor planet", though someone anal could call it "theoretically spherical minor planet". -- Kheider (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given what anal people have said in the past, I think the anal response would be "theoretically hydrostatically equilibrial minor planet" Serendipodous 19:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These remain the most widely accepted hypotheses among astronomers today" This could use a reference.
I removed it. There's really no way to source it. It's one of those annoying things I know is true but can't prove. Serendipodous 11:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noooo. Removing it is probably the least desirable option. I would think that the last paper that proposed a new hypothesis would have a paragraph saying something along the lines "while the accepted consensous is..., we think that ... is also plausible". I would be surprised if one of the latest proposals would not reference the "accepted consensus". Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a source that says that, great. I haven't. Serendipodous 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it common to use inches for measurements in astronomy? Shouldn't that be converted to metric? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you - a classic example of the importance of writing for lay readers. The instance to which I think you refer involves the use of the symbol <"> In this context it denotes not inches at all but arcseconds (a unit of angle), which uses an almost identical symbol (I don't understand why); I have revised accordingly. Thanks for picking that up! hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks (no wonder I was confused :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/90377_Sedna/archive1&oldid=1078785430"