Talk:(307261) 2002 MS4/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane (talk · contribs) 02:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting asteroid. I am not an expert about asteroids in general so I will focus more on formatting and copyediting, though I will review the sources to the best of my ability. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * P.S. No quid pro quo here, but could you also help reviewing Mars Society GAN? That article is really short and I would be very grateful if you do so. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm too busy to help review other GANs. Plus, I'm going on a 4-day vacation tomorrow so I won't be available to respond if you happen to finish your GA review of this article during that time. Nrco0e (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi it's been a while. Have you gotten around to reviewing this article yet? No rush of course. Nrco0e (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry that I have been too busy IRL lately. I will try to get the review done today. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I might not be the best person for verifying citations. I will ask for 2nd opinion for reviewing more technical aspects of the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

 * "in the Kuiper belt, a region of" -> "in the Kuiper belt, which is a region of" (for clarity)
 * "2002 MS4 has a diameter close to 800 km (500 mi), which approximately ties it with 2002 AW197 and 2013 FY27 (to within measurement uncertainties) as the largest unnamed object in the Solar System." -> "To within measurement uncertainties, 2002 MS4, 2002 AW197 and 2013 FY27 has a diameter close to 800 km (500 mi) and thus are the largest unnamed object in the Solar System." (again, for clarity)
 * "significantly improved 2002 MS4's orbit" -> "significantly reduced the uncertainty of 2002 MS4's orbit" (I assume here 'improved' as in a better estimation)
 * "Despite this, researchers do not consider 2002 MS4 to be in resonance with Neptune" – could you please clarify what exactly caused astronomers to think so? Is it because of insufficient evidence or the fact that its resonance is intermittent?
 * Comment: It's simply because astronomers don't classify as a resonant TNO. Every paper (except for that one claiming the resonance) I could find about  calls it a classical Kuiper belt object. I'm not sure why it's only this paper that mentions  is resonant—there's no formal refutation to this claim, so I do not know if this is still correct or not. Nrco0e (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "can make Earth-based observations" -> "can make observations" (space telescopes also have this issue, I think)
 * "it is approximately tied with" -> "it tied with" (redundancy)
 * "which would have made mass estimates possible" -> "otherwise estimation of its mass would have been possible" (avoid ambiguity of 'which' – is it referring to the minor planet or its moons?)
 * "for an assumed single-peaked light curve due to a spheroidal body with albedo variations" (might be worthwhile to explain this further in lay terms, as you have excellently done with other parts of this article)
 * Comment: I've decided to remove this part of the sentence since I don't think there's a need to distinguish the "single-peaked" nature of 7.33/10.44 hour period in the article, when the reference used for it does not discuss alternative possible rotation periods that are not single-peaked. For such a minor detail, I figured it would be better to explain it in a footnote instead. Nrco0e (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea too. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Overall, the article is very well written! I will try to review the citations as soon as possible, but because I am not an expert about this topic, I have asked for a second opinion for reviewing this article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Nrco0e (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

2O on citations
Because of time:,.

I am no astronomer, but I do edit in the general natural-sciences area. To my eye, all of the citations used are scientific papers (definitely acceptable) or publications by either the Jet Propulsion Laboratory or the Minor Planet Center, which I assume are considered reliable astronomy sources. My only concern is that [8] and [9] are theses, which are not necessarily acceptable sources. Nrco0e, please justify their use. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * So you're talking about the theses of Peng and Thirouin? I assure you they're reliable. Peng works with researchers from the New Horizons mission (thesis supervised by JJ Kavelaars) and has co-authored one refereed paper, Verbiscer et al. 2022. They've been working on New Horizons observations of since 2020. For Thirouin, she is an active researcher in minor planets and has over 50 refereed publications. Although some figures from her PhD thesis (i.e. rotation period of ) weren't formally published as standalone papers, I would consider it reputable since several papers have cited the  rotation period directly from her thesis. For example, ADS says 10 papers have cited Thirouin's thesis--such papers include Verbiscer et al. 2022 on New Horizons observations and Rommel et al. 2023 on  occultation. Nrco0e (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, those are good arguments for including them. I'd give this article a pass on citations. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ? SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the article meet ga standards for me as well. Since I don't have PC access today, feel free to self close this nomination @Nrco0e. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you and for the review! Nrco0e (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)