Talk:225088 Gonggong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 15:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Assessment

There's a lot a accurate information here, and much of the article is written well and interesting to read, but there are issues, mainly with the accurate use of references, and the quality of the prose. My apologies in advance if I have made any errors - some of the sources were pretty technical.

Lead section / infobox

• Unlink likely in likely dwarf planet.

Y Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I can see a connection, but should the link gravitationally rounded lead to Hydrostatic equilibrium?

 Note: Yes, "hydrostatic equilibrium" is the formal concept behind "gravitationally rounded" that is used in the definition of "dwarf planet". Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood. --Ami

• Link Solar System.

Y Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• of which Gonggong has won - take away the bold text for Gonggong, as it is already in bold at the top.

Y Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Unlink S/2010 (225088) 1, as it merely leads to another part of the article.

Y Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Discovered by (in the infobox) - there's no reason why the 3 discoverers' names can't be written in full (they are in the text of the lead section).

Y Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Are both phrases beyond Neptune and trans-Neptunian needed? Also, are both orbiting the Sun and in the Solar System needed? I would remove the duplicates.

 Note: I have removed beyond Neptune. I also added a link to plutoid, like in the Eris article. I left in the Solar System, as the sentence would be factually wrong without it. There are a lot of larger objects outside the Solar System. Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood. --Ami

• ...gravitationally rounded shape,… - consider replacing rounded with 'round' or 'spherical', to clarify the prose, as 'rounded' could be misinterpreted as 'smooth(ed)'. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Note: This would not be a misinterpretation! Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Rounded still sounds strange, even though it is perfectly correct. Could perhaps a note could added here, emphasising the definition, to remove any possible confusion about the term? --Ami

• Consider including some points mentioned in the main article, as the lead section should be a concise summary of the rest of the text:

• it was identified in two precovery images, with the earliest image taken by the European Southern Observatory on 19 August 1985';
• The name is derived from Gonggong, a Chinese water god responsible for chaos, floods and the tilt of the Earth;
• its larger mass makes retention of an atmosphere just possible;
• it is approximately the size of Pluto's moon Charon and is the 5th largest transneptunian object;
• it rotates slowly compared to other trans-Neptunian objects, which usually have rotation periods between 6 and 12 hours;
• it completes three orbits around the Sun for every ten orbits completed by Neptune; it is about 88 AU (1.32×1010 km) from the Sun; is currently the sixth-farthest known Solar System object from the Sun;
• The satellite is believed to be tidally locked to the primary;
• the satellite was discovered Following the March 2016 discovery that 2007 OR10 was an unusually slow rotator.

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reference 1 (MPC) gives the absolute magnitude as 1.6, not as given in the infobox.

Y (the reference has been updated). Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• References 7, 15a and 16a (Brown, Brown et al, and Brown) are uncontentious, and can safely be removed from the lead section to the main article.

 Note: I removed 15a and 16a, but I am not sure about 7. The IAU does not recognize the object as a dwarf planet. Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ami

History

• The 'Naming' sub-section is far too large imo, and would benefit from being reduced to at least 50% of its current size. For instance, the general information about the procedure for naming such objects is too detailed, and not specifically about 2007 OR10.

Y Removed the extra details. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Link Palomar Distant Solar System Survey; mythological; creation (Creation myth).

Y Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• the link astronomical units is only needed once, use abbreviations the second time this phrase occurs in the section.

Y Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• There's no image in this section - consider using this, an image of the telescope mentioned in the text.

Y Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• The quote is imo it not notable enough to have its own big quote marks, what are your thoughts?

 Note: I find it notable. Whether it needs the big quote marks, I am not sure. I will think about it. Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Y The quote can be replaced. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• ...a name for the moon. - consider amending to 'a name for any moons', as the criteria apply to any similar objects discovered in the Solar System.

 Note: Maybe so, but the source applies to the one known satellite specifically. There is no mention of what would happen if a second satellite was discovered. I slightly changed the phrase, but left "moon" in the singular. Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood. --Ami

• with a plurality of… - amend to 'it having gained'.

Y Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Brown in Reference 25b doesn't mention the Seven Dwarfs.

Y Oddly enough, yes. I replaced the source. Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Upon its announcement, the object was given… - improve the prose by amending to 'It was then given...'.

Y Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• ...which indicates its year of discovery, with the letters further specifying that the discovery took place in the second half of July. - c/e to something like 'indicating that it was discovered during the latter half of July 2007'.

Y Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• It has been observed 230 times over 13 oppositions.. - there needs to be a date linked with this information, as it will become out of date, if it isn't already.

Y I agree that it needs to be dated. The most recent information is dated April 2017 in the JPL reference ("solution date"), which is the date I used. It appears like the object has not been observed since then (TNOs aren't observed very often), so this is likely the current figure. Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Physical characteristics

• This whole section also needs to be looked at with a view to reducing the word count, e.g. Objects with surfaces rich in water ice… can be amended to 'They'.

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• ...2007 OR10 is large enough to be able to retain trace amounts of volatile methane on its surface,… - a citation is needed for this.

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Due to its large size, it is quite possibly a dwarf planet. - Reference 7 (Mike Brown) does say this, it says "dwarf planet? Near certainty". As the difference is subtle, but distinct, consider amending the text.

 Note: I am unable to find this sentence in the article. Renerpho (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reference 21e (Science Daily) is more cautious than the text in the article about methane on the surface of 2007 OR10 - amend ...implies the existence of a tenuous methane atmosphere… by changing to 'possible existence'.

Y This change has already been made by another user. Renerpho (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reference 26h and i (Help name...) don't appear to contain any of the information in the preceding sentence. This has the information though, so the link needs to be amended slightly. Also, this is an example of a reference without an author/website, which should be included (please check the other reference for where this occurs, and amend them too).

Y The link has already been changed; I added the authors. Renerpho (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me how Reference 41a (Johnson et al) verifies the sentence. Please point me to the right page number in the document, (possibly the top of page 16)?

Y The end of p.15 and the beginning of p.16, yes. I changed it to its larger mass and eccentric orbit could make retention of an atmosphere just possible, as the eccentric orbit plays an important role. Renerpho (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• The International Astronomical Union has not addressed the possibility of officially accepting additional dwarf planets since before the announcement of the discovery of 2007 OR10. - this needs to be copy-edited to make it clearer.

Y Added the fact that the IAU's criteria for dwarf planets requires an absolute magnitude brighter than +1, in which only Makemake and Haumea satisfies this criterion. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment To clarify Nrco0e's statement: Pluto and Eris also satisfy the criterion (while Ceres does not), but they were declared dwarf planets before the criterion had been conceived. This shouldn't be relevant to the GA review, as the article doesn't mention it (and doesn't need to). Renerpho (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Scott Sheppard and his colleagues think that it is "likely"… - Why is likely in quotes?

Y Removed. There is no reason for this. Renerpho (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Any full stops at the end of image captions need to be removed.

Y Done for all instances except for the full stop in "Neptune (white dot) is held stationary." I am not sure if the rule also applies when the image caption consists of multiple sentences? Also, the widely used template {{TNO imagemap}} would have to be changed to apply this to the caption that ends with "along with the Moon." Renerpho (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Only applies to single sentences, my comment was written carelesly. --Ami

• The size of an object can be calculated from its absolute magnitude (brightness) and albedo. and It is dimmer than Sedna, which has an apparent magnitude of 20.9.- I'm not sure why this information has been included, nor why the absolute magnitudes and diameters of Sedna and Orcus are given.

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 02:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Who is Tancredi?

Y There is a wiki-link here to Gonzalo Tancredi, possibly added by another user in response to your GA review. Renerpho (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Y Added some information about Tancredi. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 02:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• With this more recent size estimate… - avoid more recent (see MOS:RELTIME for where I am coming from).

Y (change made by another user) Renerpho (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Orbit

• Reference 5b (Buie) doesn't appear to me to provide the information given in the caption about the 3:10 resonance - can you explain where it is?

Y Yes. Search for "10:3". Resonances of TNOs can be written either way (i.e., "3:10" and "10:3" are synonymous). On Wikipedia, the former appears to be more common (my subjective impression), but that's just convention. Renerpho (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC) EDIT: To clarify why the caption cannot be changed to "10:3": It is important to be consistent within the article, so we have to decide whether "3:10" or "10:3" is used, and then stick to it. We cannot use both side by side. 01:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood. --Ami

• References 52 (Objects with distance from Sun over 84.2 AU) and 53 ("HORIZONS Web-Interface") both don't appear to me to give the data required to verify that the distance is about 88AU. Is it me?

Y In reference 52, in the table at the bottom ("8 matches found"), (225088) 2007OR10 is listed with a distance of 88.346 AU. In reference 53, the search settings must be adjusted manually, which I have mentioned in the reference. The velocity is then the value called RR ("range-rate"), which as of 2019-11-02 is 1.08 km/s (this is explained in the reference). Renerpho (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood, that helps. -- Ami

• ...currently the sixth-farthest known Solar System object… - avoid currently here as the information may go out of date (the same thing occurs in the 'Naming' sub-section)..

Y There was a problem with the note added as a reference here, which linked to V774104; the factual accuracy of that article is disputed (loooong story). I simply removed the note, as there is no way at this time to verify the factual accuracy of any claims about V774104. I tried to summarize the problems here, if you need to know more (highly WP:OR). Renerpho (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Exploration

• It was calculated… - calculated by whom?

Y (by Zangari et al.) Renerpho (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC) EDIT: Replaced with link to Amanda Zangari. This is currently a red link, but Zangari is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Renerpho (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Satellite

• Again, I would edit unnecessary and/or repeated words out to improve the prose, e.g. The orbit of the moon is highly eccentric, with an eccentricity of 0.29. This high eccentricity is thought to be… could be amended to 'The moon's orbit has an eccentricity of 0.29. This high value is thought to be...'.; or by the Kozai mechanism. The Kozai mechanism can be... can reduce to 'or by the Kozai mechanism, which can be...'.

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Remove the bold text for the satellite's name.

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Amend the title for reference 47b (DPS48), which is incomplete.

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reference 49e (Kiss et al) doesn't provide a figure of 4.34±0.2: where does this value come from?

Y No idea! I changed it to the value 4.2 given in the reference. Renerpho (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• ... implying an albedo above 0.2. - it needs to be clearer in the text why the object's diameter implies a particlar value for the albedo.

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Link tidally locked (Tidal locking).

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• ...the discovery team estimates… - consider replacing with 'has estimated'.

Y Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• The orbit of the moon is highly eccentric, with an eccentricity of 0.29. - this requires a citation.

Y Looks like it has been removed by another user. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• ...a moderate eccentricity… - why is it moderate?

Y Removed the entire phrase, as it is unnecessary detail.Renerpho (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• The 'Observations' sub-section seems imo to need to be placed at the top of the section 'Satellite' section.

? This suggestion is unclear. What do you mean by placing it on top of the Satellite section? Do you mean separating the Observations subsection from the Satellite section or something else? Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for not making this clearer. I would consider moving most of the text in 'Observations' from Following the March 2016 discovery... to at least down to ...from these two images. to the top of the section, before 2007 OR10 has a single known moon..., as it is about the discovery of the moon in the first place. This might mean copy-editing the moved text to help it make more sense. Hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Y Moved the contents of Observations. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 17:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Notes

• Reference 39 (Sinnott) does not contain the information given in note b.

Y Renerpho (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Reference 11 (Szabó) cannot be found.

Y Added archived link. Renerpho (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Add a link to Reference 12 (Boehnhardt et al) using this, which is available on subscription.

Y Renerpho (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

External links

• Consider adding the link (here), which has the earliest known image of 2007 OR10.

Y This is already the first link in the list. Renerpho (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't double check. --Ami

Duplication

• The article duplicates information, sometimes word for word, sometimes in different sections. Examples are:

• The slow rotation period led astronomers to speculate that the rotation of 2007 OR10 was slowed down by tidal forces exerted by an orbiting satellite, which was confirmed later that same year. / Following the March 2016 discovery that 2007 OR10 was an unusually slow rotator, the possibility was raised that a satellite may have slowed it down via tidal forces.
• The red color of 2007 OR10 is unexpected for an object with a substantial amount of water ice on its surface. / Objects with surfaces rich in water ice are typically neutral in color,…
• and the resulting atmosphere gradually escaped over time. / a tenuous methane atmosphere slowly escaping into space
• 2007 OR10 was initially nicknamed "Snow White" for its presumed bright and reflective surface / Brown nicknamed the object "Snow White" for its presumed white color etc.. Please go through the article and address this issue where it occurs.

Y Done for all. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 04:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week, please let me know if you have any queries or need further clarification. I'll cross out text once I can see an issue has been sorted, and check over the article again when you think all the issues raised have been addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

So far, nearly all your suggestions have been done, with the exception of your last one for the Observations subsection of Satellite, marked with ?. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 04:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Passing

Passing the article now, great work! Amitchell125 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)