Talk:Comet Kohoutek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 21:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review coming QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images all good
" The comet was Kohoutek's second discovery of 1973; the first..." I take it this was his second ~comet~ of the year; if so any further details on the first comet?

The first comet discovered by Kohoutek that year was one of little significance, particularly compared to his second discovery; it was only observed in 1973. I have added a brief note next to that sentence and changed the wording to specifically refer to the comet as being Kohoutek's second comet discovery of 1973. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Analyses of Kohoutek have provided different assessments of the scale of the comet's release of dust and gas, with some suggesting that Kohoutek is relatively dust-rich (and consequently gas-poor) and others suggesting that the comet is relatively dust-poor (and consequently gas-rich)." What follows in the paragraph is that both were proven right in time? But then..."However, later photometric analyses indicated that Kohoutek was instead a gassy comet with a high gas-to-dust ratio emblematic of comets entering the inner Solar System for the first time, suggesting a nucleus rich in volatiles and relatively depleted in refractory substances." This might indicate that the dust-rich theorists were wrong, but there was a transition that would support both theories. Perhaps all that is needed is to remove "However" from the lower paragraph.

In reading through the sources when expanding the article, I was also confused by the presence of sources that chalked up various findings as confirmations of both the comet being gas-rich or the comet being dust-rich, perhaps depending on whatever stance the authors of those sources previously supported. Broadly, it seems that the comet challenged some of the assumptions that a "gas-rich" or "dust-rich" comet entailed. The more recent literature generally stated that Kohoutek was moreso a gas-rich comet, but I was not able to find a reliable source that explicitly summarized the Kohoutek literature in that manner. For now, I have removed the "however", as suggested. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"... although not observable from the Earth's surface..." Wouldn't the lumosity increase be registered by the naked eye, just as with the comet itself?

Changed the phrasing to "...although not clearly observable..." The idea here was that the comet at its brightest was too close to the Sun to be seen clearly from Earth due to the brightness of the Sun and the sky; only astronauts were able to clearly see the comet during that time, free from the visual effects of the Earth's atmosphere. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...the [coma] is getting qutoe large and bright, and the tail, all we can see is a fan behind it. And we're beginning to see some reds and some yellows in it." Typo or [sic] in the Carr excerpt

Fixed; was not a [sic]. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the dirty snowball conception has been proven correct, but what of the subsidiary theory that "Kohoutek belonged to a subset of comets containing a non-volatile dust mantle around an icy volatile core"...has there been further determination with later comets/technology? If a reader wants to know the advancement of the snowball theory they can click on that link, but no such link for the dust layer theory

I was not able to find a recent reliable source passing judgement on the specific dust mantle model proposed by Mendis and Brin (1977). At best, the scientific literature appears to point to that model as being a part of models incorporating renewed understanding of comet behavior, such as in Szego (2001) or Prialnik (2002) However, I've added a link to the "Icy dirtball" section of the comet nucleus article, given that description refers to the idea of at least some comets having dusty mantles. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Kohoutek was in its time the most publicized comet aside from Halley's Comet." Would this be more accurate if read: "Most publicized until Halley's Comet"?

While the most recent apparition of Halley's Comet occurred in 1986, its previous apparitions and relatively frequent return to the inner Solar System made it a very well-known comet. That sentence cites a paper published in 1974 that describes Comet Kohoutek has having "undoubtedly received more publicity than any other except for P/Halley". TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worthwhile to put the Skylab 3 mission patch in this area someplace

Added. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cultural reception section is very fascinating. Great article, not much needed to be changed. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague: Thanks for the review! I hope the qualms noted above have been resolved and would be happy to fix any additional issues. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]