Talk:Detached object/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Reviewer's comments

I think this article would be a straight pass at GA with a few tweaks.

1) Lead section: The lead is clear to someone with a grounding in physics or astronomy, but I do not believe it would be obvious to (say) a teenager what a detached object actually is. What I'm saying is, I think the lead might benefit from a bit more WP:OBVIOUS (perhaps by comparing a detached object to Pluto, for example).

I've done a rewrite, adding plenty of comparisons. Iridia (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) Table: The table in the article would benefit from a key, that explains more clearly what "number" means in this context, what a "diameter method" is (presumably the way the diameter has been determined? I just don't know), and so on.

More notes added. Iridia (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So all in all, you're almost there but you need to make it just a bit more idiot-friendly!

The sourcing concerns on the talk page should also be addressed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to repeat that the sourcing concerns on the article's talk page should also be addressed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month; is this a pass or fail? Wizardman 04:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to fail it, but I think if the sources don't improve, I have little choice.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about what do you mean by improving sources? Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. On the article's talk page, Kheider makes various remarks challenging the view that many objects listed in the article really do qualify as "detached". Kheider shows that they may correctly be considered classical. What I'm ideally looking for is a reliable source that unequivocally calls the objects listed in the article "detached objects", I think.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least this one does. Nergaal (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed. I also see that all of the links to sources in the article now appear to be working correctly, which answers Kheider's other concern.

I shall pass this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that some objects currently considered classical by the Minor Planet Center can be considered detached by the Deep Ecliptic Survey. There does not seem to be a single definition used by all authors. Nor does there seem to be many peer-reviewed papers on the subject. -- Kheider (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that concern should prevent the article being listed as a GA?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am basically neutral on the idea. I really do wish we had another recent peer-reviewed paper. It is somewhat scary what a small difference there can be between a classical object and a detached object (scattered–extended). Even though the Classical Kuiper belt object article has been around longer, it is still only a short B-class article. Minus all my DES references, Detached object#References seems to have about the same number of peer-reviewed references as Classical Kuiper belt object#References. -- Kheider (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]