Talk:Moons of Haumea/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have the following comments regarding the article. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Is there a way to put bolding in the first line, perhaps by rewording the first sentence?
 * Amended. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You use "appear" repeatedly in the first few lines. Is there a way to have more variation in wording?
 * Amended. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * who named the moons, as the names are different from the one the Caltech team gave them.
 * Amended. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Namaka, the smaller, inner satellite of Haumea, was discovered on June 30, 2005, and nicknamed "Blitzen". In the myth of the Hawaiian goddess Haumea, "Her many children sprang from different parts of her body." Thus the Haumean moons are named after Haumea's children. -- these two sentences seem like non sequiters.
 * Amended. (Ok, whole paragraph rewritten)... Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is a little confusing on the subject of actually viewing the moons. Perhaps this paragraph could be clarified:
 * At present, the orbits of the Haumean moons appear almost exactly edge-on from Earth, with the moons potentially occulting Haumea.[8] Observation of such transits would provide precise information on the size and shape of Haumea and its moons, as happened in the late 1980s with Pluto and Charon.[9] The tiny change in brightness of the system during these occultations will require at least a medium-aperture professional telescope for detection.[10] Hiʻiaka last occulted Haumea in 1999, a few years before discovery, and will not do so again for some 130 years.[11] However, in a situation unique among regular satellites, Namaka's orbit is being greatly torqued by Hiʻiaka, preserving the viewing angle of Namaka–Haumea transits for several more years.
 * Extra sentence added before paragraph to clarify. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Over the timescale of the system, it should have been tidally damped into a more circular orbit. - such sentences appear to be jargon and don't explain anything to the general reader.
 * Amended with hopefully helpful expansion of ideas. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that it has been disturbed by orbital resonances with the more massive Hiʻiaka, due to converging orbits as they move outward from Haumea due to tidal dissipation. The moons may have been caught in and then escaped from orbital resonance several times; they currently are in or at least close to an 8:3 resonance. This strongly perturbs Namaka's orbit, with a current precession of ~20°. -- this is another example of jargon plus poor wording ("Tt appears that it has been disturbed by..")
 * Changed a little; no doubt the other editors will find further improvements. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it turns out to have a similar albedo to the dwarf planet itsef, Namaka would be about 170 km in diameter. -- why is this?
 * Amended. (Could probably use that Spitzer reference from Haumea though). Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * The article is immensely improved. Very nice.
 * "The unusual spectrum, along with similar absorption lines on Haumea, led Brown and colleagues to conclude that capture was an unlikely model for the system's formation,..." - what does "capture" mean in this context?
 * Sentence reworded for clarity. Iridia (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Observation of such transits..." - are transits the same as osculations?
 * pretty much yes Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, even though I don't exactly quite understand everything, you guys have done a standout job of being accommodatating and explaining. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Good job. Congratulations!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)