Talk:38628 Huya/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sam-2727 (talk · contribs) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the article with the general criteria of good articles on top, with specific comments/edits as bullet points underneath that. This will take me a couple days or so.Sam-2727 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you indicate below each bullet point if you have completed (or rejected) each suggestion? Sam-2727 (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General Criteria[edit]

Well Written: Since all comments below have been solved, I don't see any formatting or grammatical issues Verifiable with no original research: Checked the sources and all seem to be in order. Broad in Coverage: Nothing I can think of that is omitted Stable: Yep. Neutral: I mean, it's an article about a solar system body, but neutral in every way it can be. Illustrated: All images have copyright rationale and are captioned

Specific Comments[edit]

Y "By 2002, Huya was observed 303 times, sufficient to accurately determine its orbit. For this reason, the Minor Planet Center...". Perhaps brings clarity to say "By 2002, Huya was observed 303 times. This was sufficient to accurately determine its orbit, so was assigned the minor planet number... by the Minor Planet Center". This just seems to bring a bit more clarity than "for this reason." Also in this sentence, what exactly is the criteria for "an accurate determination of orbit." It would be nice to have more specifics here.
Y "...being ranked as the second-largest minor planet...". Awkward: change to "ranking as the second-largest minor planet"
Y "...which happens to be the combination of the brightnesses...". Suggests that this was a coincidence. Change to "was later discovered to be" or something equivalent
Y "No signs of a possible atmosphere or rings have been detected during the occultation" to "No signs of a possible atmosphere or rings were detected during the occultation"
Y "...Michael Brown considers Huya to be probably a dwarf planet..." change to "...Michael Brown considers Huya to probably be a dwarf planet..."
Y "...placing it between the "likely" and "possibly" range." You can't place something between a range. You should delete "range."
Y "as a rough estimate derived from variations in brightness." Delete "as"
Y "The discrepancy between the visible and infrared spectra of Huya was interpreted as an indication of heterogeneity in Huya's surface composition." when saying "The discrepancy," you suggest that this is mentioned previously, but it is unclear to me as to where this is mentioned. Either clarify what this is referring to, or change to suggest that this isn't mentioned previously.
Y These two sentences are very similar. They should be combined: "The red color of Huya's surface results from the irradiation of organic compounds by solar radiation and cosmic rays, which produces dark, reddish tholins that cover its surface." and "Huya's featureless spectrum indicates that its surface is covered with a thick layer of dark organic compounds irradiated by solar radiation and cosmic rays."
Y "...some stony S-type asteroids..." shouldn't the entirety of "S-type asteroids" link to S-type asteroid and not only the "S-type" part of it?
Y "...Its apparent magnitude, its brightness as seen from Earth..." or rather "Its apparent magnitude, the brightness as seen from Earth"
Y "Like for Pluto..." delete "for"
Y "...the spacecraft have a launch date in November 2027 and use a gravity assist from Jupiter, taking 20 to 25 years to arrive." Previous sentences suggest that this is still a potential thing, so perhaps say "the spacecraft would have," etc.?
Y "Consequently, a definitive mass and density estimate for Huya could not be derived from the satellite's orbit." Not past tense because still can't be derived. So should be "can't be derived."
Y "From the two Hubble images of Huya taken one day apart in 2002, astrometry of the satellite's changing position from Huya indicates..." better worded as "astrometry of the satellite's changing position around Huya from two Hubble images taken one day apart in 2002 indicates..." as in the wording currently in the article, it is slightly unclear what the first clause is referring to.
Y Would it be worth mentioning that it has a moon in the lead of the article?

Sam-2727 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam-2727: Finished your current suggestions. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 20:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok I'm going to close this as a GA as all seems to check out now in the article Sam-2727 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]