Talk:Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990

Requested move 16 February 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990 → Earth-grazing meteoroid of 1990 – Or 1990 Earth-grazing meteoroid. There are no other recorded meteoroids in 1990 unless I'm mistaken. Current title is too precise for my liking. If the proposed title is not precise enough, how about Earth-grazing meteoroid of October 1990 or ? --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment you are most certainly mistaken. There are many many such meteoroids each year. They form the portion of annual meteor showers each year which do not burn up in the atmosphere. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But they must be proven notable; otherwise, this is the only notable meteoroid of the year. George Ho (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The annual meteor showers are all over the news every year, and featured in astronomy magazines months in advance, so you can show up and watch the shows. And we have articles on all the prominent meteor showers -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you by any chance one of registered users? If so, watch out, so you don't risk your comments being struck out. Also, the coverage must be significant enough, and a topic must be independent from the topic itself. --George Ho (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The annual meteor showers easily meet the notability criterion, with multiple independent sources, EACH year. (like the SuperBowl) Just because we don't have separate articles for each year's showers does not mean they are not notable. No, why do you think I'm one of the registered users? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Earth grazers are common (even if witnessing or recording the event is rare). To remove the date is too suggest otherwise. -- Kheider (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I would also prefer if the IP user logged in, I have to say that I understand his/her point, see below. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Originally I was quite hesitant, but the arguments above convinced me it would be better to keep the current name. Notable meteoroid showers also contain Earth-grazing meteoroids (although they might not be notable individually). Besides that the proposed new name is not something like The notable Earth-grazing meteoroid of 1990, but simply Earth-grazing meteoroid of 1990, which for some readers could be misleading, since it might seem to them that there were no other Earth-grazing meteoroids on that year (notable or not). Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quality classification
I'd say that this article is close to B class, per WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings: In all, this article is close to B class, and so is currently definitely a C class. --JorisvS (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) References: . Three references is not much, but I don't know how many are out there. However, the inline referencing is pretty good. Maybe a few more references for the "Observation" section could be dug up.
 * 2) Coverage. ✅. Most definitely.
 * 3) Defined structure. ✅.
 * 4) Reasonably well-written. ✅. At least since I've copyedited it.
 * 5) Supporting materials. . There are several tables that support understanding. Maybe an image with the two different orbits (akin to the image of the orbit of the Chelyabinsk meteor) could be created, though I doubt this has any bearing on this point. Also, is it possible to have a more elaborate infobox?
 * 6) Understandability. ✅. I think there are no major problems here, although there is some room for improvement.


 * Thanks for the review!
 * As for the references, all other sources I found so far were just citing the 1992 paper by Borovička and Ceplecha, so I think it is better to cite directly the original paper. I will try to find something in the Czechoslovak astronomy magazines of 1990.
 * As for the supporting materials, I added some more info into the infobox, but I am afraid I am not able to produce a picture similar to the one in Chelyabinsk meteor article :-( Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on what they're saying. If there is no added value content-wise, then indeed no, but else there could be added value. As for an image, we could ask at WP:Astronomy. --JorisvS (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the Czechoslovak astronomy magazines did not take notice of the event. However, I found a newer paper by Spurný, which has more precise data, and updated the article, adding the paper as a reference. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article now definitely feels better than C class, although I'm still unsure if five references is really sufficient. I've reclassified it to B-class anyway. It could now actually be worthwhile to nominate it for GA and see what feedback it gets. --JorisvS (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for assessing the article as well as for the copyediting and other help. I think I will try the GA nomination and see what the feedback will be. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Diagram of its orbit
There are several versions of a diagram of its orbit posted at WT:ASTRONOMY: The first version, an improved version though with the side view slightly oblique, and a suggestion for an oblique view instead of a side view as perpendicular to one of the meteoroid's orbital planes. Comments and suggestions, especially at the thread there, are appreciated, so that it can be finalized and added to this article. --JorisvS (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Size
At 44 kg, how big would it have been? --JorisvS (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ordinary chondrites have, very roughly, a density of 3 kg/dm3 (2.4–4 kg/dm3; ), which means it had a volume of some 15 L (11–18 L), which, for a spherical object, would mean a radius of 15 cm (14–16 cm). --JorisvS (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Červená hora image
What's the role of the shutter? It says that it divided the image '12.5 times per second', but that can only mean that multiple images were made (because you can't have only a single image divided 12.5 times per second), AFAICS. This is also the only way I can think of one could determine the meteoroid's speed. --JorisvS (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It was one photograph made on one photographic plate. The exposure time was for several hours. The shutter was interrupting the exposure and thus divided track of the meteoroid on this photograph so that it did not look like this ____________, but rather like this --. Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All right. And it produced the image in the infobox? But there it looks like ____________ ... --JorisvS (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I reworded it, is it better?
 * As for the image in the infobox, if you enlarge it, it is clearly interrupted like -. Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Right, I looked at the wrong object :P. The track of the Moon is rather dominant and eye-catching. I think we should add an arrow (possibly colored) or something to point readers to what the meteoroid actually is, instead of only relying on the caption, especially given how visually dominant the Moon is in it. --JorisvS (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. I will do it soon. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, I think the arrow is best a few times larger to be properly eye-catching. --JorisvS (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bold text
Quoting from WP:BOLDTITLE, "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it", which was rather the case with the previous version (which repeated 'meteoroid' twice within a few words). An article's lead does not have to have some words in bold; it can, if it makes it clearer without sacrificing proper style. (For the record, in my previous edit, Earth-grazing fireball was linked by Earth-grazing via redirect. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507075446/http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu:80/MagScale.html to http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/618QHms8h?url=http://www.fai.org/astronautics/100km.asp to http://www.fai.org/icare-records/100km-altitude-boundary-for-astronautics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)