Talk:28978 Ixion/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sam-2727 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably take a couple of days max. I'll list all my preliminary comments as bullets and then go through all the main criteria was those are addressed. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments

Y "It was given the provisional designation 2001 KX76, indicating that it was discovered in the second half of May 2001." Would it be useful to briefly explain the designation in a footnote? (so at the end of the paragraph say second half of May is K and then X76 is because of recycling 25 letters and then increasing the number each time all 25 letters are repeated. Might be a bit wordy and too much, but I think it would be something that the reader might wonder
Y "V-band magnitude," the study cited refers to this as "optical magnitude." I'm fairly certain the two are equivalent, but optical/visual magnitude is a better term than "V-band" in my opinion
Y "Under the assumption of a low albedo, it was presumed to have a large diameter around 1,200 km (750 mi)" the word "large" is repeated heavily in this paragraph. I would remove it in this phrase and in the subsequent sentence ("concluded a similarly large size")
Y "However, they later reevaluated their results in 2003 and realized that their detection of Ixion's thermal emission was spurious" however at a beginning of a sentence is awkward. It reads just as well if it is removed (so the sentence begins "They later...")
Y "has not addressed the possibility of officially accepting additional dwarf planets since the acceptance of Makemake and Haumea in 2008." You have two IAU sources here, but none of them say definitively that the IAU hasn't addressed the possibility of naming others, just that they haven't yet.
Y "considers Ixion to be highly likely a dwarf planet," change to "highly likely be"
Y For the first two sentences of "Orbit and rotation," might be better to word as "Ixion is classified as a plutino, or an object that has 2:3 resonance with Neptune (footnote that they are named after pluto, itself a plutino). That is, it completes two orbits around the sun for every three orbits that Neptune takes." Just think it clarifies the nature of Plutinos more.

This is legitimately well written and out of the entire article which I spent scrutinizing for a long time, these are the only suggestions I could come up with. A lot of these are suggestions though so if you feel that any of them are erroneous, let me know. I'll go through the major criteria one more time probably tomorrow. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final evaluation against criteria

Sorry, had some IRL stuff to attend to before getting back to this. Definitely a pass and I'm closing this review as I have no other comments on changes to make. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on the criteria (in order):

Well written. MOS compliant.
Nearly all references from published scientific articles.
No missing details that I can ascertain.
I mean, it's an asteroid but sure
See above
Very well illustrated. Images relevant to article and expand on content.