Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Summary

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Review comments

Criteria 1

General comments

• Avoid current, various, many, and several.
• All imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa. If possible, use a conversion template, eg. 5 miles (8 km).
  • Scientific articles are allowed to use the units relevant to their discipline. Since all science uses metric, that means all science articles use metric only. Serendi^podous 15:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, but a quick look through several of the best astronomy articles shows the use of the conversion template is common, possible because it's not true that in astronomy the metric system is always used. SI units should be the primary ones, however. (see MOS:UNIT) At FA level, articles are criticized for not having all the conversions to imperial units done, and so I would imagine it's fine to include them here. I'll do them if you want. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you OK with me doing the conversions, Serendipodous? I don't want to be reverted if I go ahead! Amitchell125 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I'm enough of a Wikipedian to know when to back down. Serendi^podous 18:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Now done (distances and areas), not densities etc. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Avoid the qualifier However at the start of any sentences.
• Numbers over 'nine' are not written as words (MOS:NUMERAL).
• NASA is sometimes in italics and sometimes not.
• Surnames only after a person is first mentioned.
• You need to check throughout the article where there are 2–5 citations to verify a single sentence. Delete any superfluous ones.**
• Avoid very, recent.

The only uses of the word "recent" apply to geological activity. Serendi^podous 20:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• Move any links where they first occur, e.g. Hubble Space Telescope.
• Remove the duplicate links in the article. 8.3 has 11 dup links – see MOS:DL for the sidebar tool to help remove these.

e.g. the 5th paragraph of Dawn mission has: bright spots; albedo; cryovolcanic; Ahuna Mons; brine; magnesium sulfate; hexahydrite; sodium carbonate.

• There should be introductory text before any gallery of images.**

Lead section/infobox

• Unlink planet; liquid water (MOS:OL).

Given that its identity as a planet is one of its main controversies, a link to a definition of the term seems pertinent. Also, the liquid water links to extraterrestrial liquid water, not just water. Serendi^podous 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving the link for planet; however whilst the link to extraterrestrial liquid water is also OK, the text doesn't lead to where readers would expect it to, and so needs to be amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Amend 15-to-16-month to ‘15- to 16-month'.
• Information in the lead section that is missing from the article - Ceres is 940 km (580 mi) in diameter; Vesta and perhaps other asteroids were (rounded) in the past; Ceres is both the smallest recognized dwarf planet and the only one inside Neptune's orbit; Ceres was reclassified as an asteroid in the 1850s after many other objects in similar orbits were discovered; Ceres was classified both as a C-type asteroid  and, due to the presence of clay minerals, as a G-type asteroid.**
• Link antiquity; NASA; dense (density).

1.1 Discovery

• Johann Elert Bode is linked twice in this section.
• The quotation needs a direct citation.**

Which quotation? Serendi^podous 14:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(whom he dubbed the "celestial police")—all quotations must be directly cited. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Amend Johann Elert Bode to ‘the German astronomer Johann Elert Bode’ the first time he is mentioned, and simply 'Bode' the second time.
• Kepler should be introduced and named in full.
• Unlink Berlin (common word).

what about the other linked cities? Serendi^podous 14:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Only 'major' cities are unlinked (without any guidance provided about what that means, so it's your call). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Who was Jérôme Lalande? He should be introduced. Ditto Carl Friedrich Gauss; Heinrich W. M. Olbers; Johann Hieronymus Schröter.
• orbital motion – it needs to be clearer which form of motion is being referred to here.

1.2 Name

• Amend the world's existence.
• Amend Piazzi's name of "Ceres" to ‘Ceres’.
• Amend another element was also initially named after Ceres, but, when cerium was named to ‘another element, cerium, was also named after Ceres’.

1.3 Classification

• Dup link - 2 Pallas
• The quotation needs to be directly cited.**
• IAU needs expansion.
• As the first such body to be discovered, Ceres was given the designation 1 Ceres under the modern system of minor-planet designations should be at the end of the paragraph.

2 Orbit

• The 2nd paragraph is uncited.**
• The animation needs to be deleted from this section.
• Define i and e in the first paragraph (and in the table).
• moderately is meaningless here.

N^{Not yet sorted}

I gave examples as to what "moderately" meant in that context. What else can I do? I can't just say "inclined"; all orbits are inclined. Serendi^podous 19:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear here. Anything other than the bare facts goes against MOS:EDITORIAL—readers can decide for themselves if the inclination is moderate or not. I would amend the text to something like 'Ceres's orbit has an inclination of 10.6° (in comparison to 7° for Mercury and 17° for Pluto) and an eccentricity of 0.08 (compared to 0.09 for Mars)'. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• The last paragraph should be rewritten to make it less confusing to readers.

Do you mean the paragraph about the asteroid family? Serendi^podous 15:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking again, there's not really a problem apologies. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink near, being so close to a link to the same article.
• The orbital elements table seems to be misplaced, I would put it at the top of the orbits section, with an explanation.
• Replace the wordy can all appear to cross the Sun, or transit it with ‘transit the Sun’.

4 Geology

• Unlink India; Argentina (MOS:OL).
• next smallest likely (but unproven) object – it’s unclear what this means.
• Link Modelling (presumably Mathematical model).
• Why is there a hatnote which is not connected with the text in the sub-section?
• Link volatile; albedo.
• Amend Organic compounds (tholins) to ‘Tholins’.
• Avoid don’t.
• The third paragraph is uncited.**
• While should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link.

5 Atmosphere

• Several of the paragraphs in this section are too short.
• No italics for Herschel Space Observatory?

I'm iffy on italics; they're satellites, not spacecraft. Serendi^podous 15:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. AM

6 Origin and evolution

• Unlink inner Solar System (obvious phrase).
• (planetary embryo) is unnecessary.
• Amend impacts to ‘crater 'impacts’.

8 Observation and exploration

• I see little need to link star, binoculars or night sky.
• Part of the first paragraph in 8.1 is uncited.**

this one's optional. AM

• Avoid generally regarded (weasel word).
• The list should be converted into prose.
• Most of the first paragraph of 8.2 is uncited.** There are 2 short paragraphs, which should be combined into the section’s text.
• The Dawn mission is referred to 16 times before it finally gets introduced here. Either this section needs to be relocated further up the article, or any mainly unneeded text referring to Dawn before this section can be omitted.

I don't see how. Dawn is the only mission to Ceres and our only source for closeup images. It kinda has to be mentioned. Serendi^podous 18:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood. How about introducing Dawn when it is first mentioned in the main text—in the rotation and axial tilt section? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Avoid claimed (weasel word).  
• (see image) is unhelpful.

9 Maps

• The captions contain external links.

11 See also

• Delete asteroid belt and any other links already present in the article. (MOS:NOTSEEALSO)
• Portal links belong in the "See also" section.

12 Notes

• Note a requires a citation.**

Criteria 2**

Referencing issues for the version dated 10:45, July 11, 2021:

• Any retrieval dates for journals are not needed. (Optional)
• Ref 52 (NZ Herald) is superfluous. (Optional)
• Remove the citations from the lead section (they verify non-controversial facts).
• The link is not needed as no text is available: #1; #66; (Optional)
• #6 A citation (or working) is required, as the calculations are not routine.
• Consider adding a {{subscription required}} template, or amend the source (url-access=subscription) to: #7; #8; #10; #11; #108 ;#112; #120; #125; #127 (Optional)
• The following are incorrectly formatted, as a consistent style is needed: #15; #17; #41; #43; #47; #90; #99; #117; #149; #150; #151 (Apologies, this comment is incorrect)
• Dead links: #20 & 60 (Landau)
• #27 is in Italian, and the reference needs to say so (Optional)
• #59 should not have capital letters (Optional)
• #64 the title is incorrect (Optional)
• #74 is not a citation
• #39 Is a specific page available? (Optional)
• #32 seems to have an incorrect link
• Identical links - #106 & #107; #109 & 110; #117 & 118 (Optional)
• What makes you think the following are reliable sources? #16; #81; #113; #162; #168

Criteria 3

• In 1.2, the adjectival forms information is excessively detailed for the article. Consider amending the first two sentences to something like ‘The adjectival forms of the name are Cererian or Cererean’.**

The irregular form Ceresian /sɪˈriːziən/ is occasionally seen for the goddess (as in the sickle-shaped Ceresian Lake), as are, by analogy with cereal, the forms Cerean /ˈsɪəriən/[34] and Cerealian /sɛriˈeɪliən/. is off-topic. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• In 1.3, the third paragraph, being mainly a discussion of the term planet, is mainly off topic. It could be reduced to a single sentence that discusses only Ceres.**
• Also in 1.3, the last paragraph, a discussion of how different organisation have classified Ceres, can be omitted, as being superfluous.**

Criteria 6

• File:The Four Largest Asteroids.jpg; File:Ceres, Earth & Moon size comparison.jpg and File:Eros, Vesta and Ceres size comparison.jpg are incorrectly tagged as being produced by NASA.

They are collages of NASA-made images. Serendi^podous 19:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• There are left-aligned images at the start of sections.

See MOS:IMAGELOCATION about not having images on the left. Some left-hand-side images are needed, but some of the images are disturbing the correct position of the titles and text. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Some image captions are not succinct enough.

The remaining image with a long caption is the one in the Discovery section. Could the portrait of Piazzi (here) replace this image, which imo adds little to the article? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• There are too many images,** so the article looks cluttered. Several are too similar-looking, and seem only to serve as decorative illustrations, without helping readers to understand the text. Example - The Geology section is over-populated, I suggest you retain the Ahuma Mons, Bright spot and internal structure images. (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: “Images (are) not primarily decorative.”; “too many (images) can be distracting”; “Strive for variety.”; “Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available.”)
• I don’t see that the orbits illustration (and the accompanying text in the article) is useful or needed, as it contains words that are hard to read and already present in the article, and the images need a lot of text to explain them.** (MOS:TEXTASIMAGES: “Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image.”)

I don't understand why an image illustrating Ceres's orbit is unneeded in a section describing Ceres's orbit. Serendi^podous 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies Serendipodous for not being clearer. It's clearly a very good idea to illustrate the orbit somehow. It's just that this illustration as it stands is hard to read (it has text with lines running through it, and dark text on a dark background), and there is text that is duplicated within the article. The last point can be tolerated, but something needs to be done about the rest. It's an SVG, so I'll see if i can amend it a little. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Image amended (clarity improved a bit). AM

• There are oversized images: (MOS:IMGSIZE: “Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified.”; “images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 220px (and) should usually be no more than 400px wide.”)
• The position of some of the images needs some attention (MOS:SANDWICH: “ Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement.”; “An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section.”)

See my comment above, which makes this one redundant. AM

More to follow

Referencing comments to follow in due course, which may be amended once the above comments relating to references (**) start being addressed.

Serendipodous, feel free to contact me here with any concerns, and let me know where any issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

On hold

This is quite a list. I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 21 July until 26 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. I'm offline from 15-19 July, but will reply to any messages when I'm back. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: I've been through and crossed out issues that looked sorted, and added other comments/crosses to show what still remains to be done. Please let me know if you need a few more days. Thanks for all you've done so far. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's looking close now, just a few remaining points to be addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Passing

Great work, now passing the article at GA. Best of luck if you want to continue moving it further on towards becoming an FA! Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)