Talk:(523764) 2014 WC510
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Jyg in topic Artist's impression image misleading?
 | A fact from (523764) 2014 WC510 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 October 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
( )
Artist's impression of the 2014 WC510 binary system occulting a distant star
- ... that (523764) 2014 WC510 (pictured) is a binary trans-Neptunian object that only orbits Earth's sun once every 245.8 years?
Created/expanded by Nrco0e (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) and Maile66 (talk) at 01:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC).
Nominated less than a day after creation, more than enough prose content, neutral and a bunch of good sources. The hook is short and interesting. QPQ is done. The image is relevant and free (released/uploaded by the artist). However, I'm not sure how to read the source for the hook. I see various number values but no 246.8. Instead I find the sidereal orbital period listed as 245.77 years, which also is what the article's infobox says. What's going on and how do I confirm the value in the hook? Ffranc (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Nrco0e for clarification. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ffranc: The orbital period depends on the source, though I am unable to find the source to 246.8 years. For consistency, it would be better if the hook uses the approximate actual value of 245.8 years from the article. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 19:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- On another note, it seems like the aforementioned value 246.8 years in the hook might be a typo, as it is only 1 year off the actual value. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mandarax, Nrco0e, and Ffranc: I fixed the typo. --evrik (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it in the hook. I fixed it in the article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Everything looks good now! Ffranc (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it in the hook. I fixed it in the article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mandarax, Nrco0e, and Ffranc: I fixed the typo. --evrik (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- On another note, it seems like the aforementioned value 246.8 years in the hook might be a typo, as it is only 1 year off the actual value. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Artist's impression image misleading?
editThat artist's impression gives the impression the that difference in diameter between the two component objects of 2014 WC510 (assuming the larger object is generally spherical) is a factor of ~5, while actual measurements differ by a factor of ~1.3 (180km/140km). The image is misleading. Jyg (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect the observer is supposed to be closer to one object than the other. You'll see the surface texture scale implies the smaller object is smaller because it's farther away. WilyD 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @WilyD , good call, very smart. Though, I suspect it's too subtle of a fact to help with what still seems misleading, at least to me. At any rate, it is all moot as the image has been removed due to copyright issues. Jyg (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)