Wikipedia:Peer review/Definition of planet/archive3
I was wondering if this was going to become an issue, and apparently, at long last, it has. The hydrostatic equilibrium section has been flagged as being a bit ORish, a fact which I always slightly suspected but which I allowed myself to ignore given that that this article has gone through two peer reviews and two successful featured article nominations with that section remaining pretty much intact. Of all the sections in this article, this is the one I have had the least hand in, and understand the least. I really don't know if it would be possible to properly cite it, or which sources to use. So. What should I do? Serendipodous 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really have any good suggestions other than to think about a complete re-write from scratch. It appears to me that the IAU hasn't really decided on the criteria for selecting border-line cases yet. Here's some references that are marginally relevant:
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993CeMDA..57..247L — a paper that only a mathematician could love. It has some interesting aspects about the shapes of planets over time.
- http://www.imcce.fr/~hestro/papers/hestroA04.pdf — discusses equilibrium shapes of binary asteroids. Could weak rubble piles meet the criteria for hydrostatic equilibrium?
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Ap&SS.103..379H — discusses hydrostatic equilibrium in the case of asteroids.
- Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. — RJH (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)