Talk:Vanth (moon)

Untitled

Anti-pluto? In the 1930s, Orcus was actually about 52 degrees behind Pluto. It spends plenty of its orbital cycle within 90 degrees of Pluto as seen from the Sun.

Naming of (90482) Orcus I Vanth

(Cross-posted from WT:ASTRO) According to the article Vanth (moon), the name of (90482) Orcus I Vanth was assigned in April 2010, but the reference is a blank page. However the name appears to be assigned in Minor Planet Circular 69495, available in a batch dated 2010/03/30 [1][2]. I'd update the article but I'm not particularly well-versed in the naming procedures, so I might be missing something here. Icalanise (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Subbed. Serendi^podous 06:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that. While we're discussing Vanth, do we have a better image for the article: the article itself points out that Vanth is significantly redder than Orcus, but the image shows them as roughly the same colour. Not sure if there's an actual image itself so we don't have to rely on artist's impressions for the main image. Icalanise (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It can be photoshopped, I suppose. I don't really have the tech to do it. Serendi^podous 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Escape velocity: Please add citation

I make bad citations on wikipedia. The source for the new escape velocity is http://books.google.com/books?id=_LZ8AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=what+is+vanth%27s+escape+velocity?&source=bl&ots=hbe1z-FBKl&sig=1Ed1Lelh-ecVORaGLwl7nVwiy2o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yybkU6TwK9G2yATNpYHwCQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20vanth's%20escape%20velocity%3F&f=false. TeigeRyan (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vanth (moon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks interesting! Review to follow in the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Content and prose review

• Hubble Space Telescope is not usually in italics, and shouldn't be in italics in this article. Most spacecraft aren't in italics. MOS:ITALIC isn't as helpful as I would like it to be.
• Vanth is massive enough that it shifts the barycenter outside of Orcus maybe say it is the barycenter of the Orcus-Vanth system
• Name: Vanth was ultimately chosen who made the choice? If it was Brown, better to state in active voice
• Visual: Vanth could only be visually resolved I think present tense flows better here
• Vanth's visible apparent magnitude [...] will gradually brighten shouldn't it be "Vanth will gradually brighten" or "Vanth's magnitude will increase" or something?
• Stellar occultations [..] can be planned when the object's orbital trajectory is well-known well, they can be predicted, so you can then plan your observations, but "planning a stellar occultation" sounds like you can influence on the moon's movement.
• The 2017 occultation did not show signs of an atmosphere on Vanth down to 1–4 microbars does that mean "showed no signs of an atmosphere, with a bound on a potential atmospheric pressure of 1-4 µbar"? "down to" isn't totally clear imo
• Orbit: currently being viewed face-on given how slowly this changes, this probably doesn't violate WP:CURRENTLY, but might start to do so in a decade or so.
  • Yeah, I'm not sure how I can resolve this issue. I can't give a range of dates (i.e. "Vanth's orbit appeared face-on from 1990-2050") since there aren't any sources for that, and numbers would be arbitrary since it's a gradual change. Do you have any ideas on how to phrase this? Nrco0e (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    • You could say something like "as of 2024, the orbit appears face-on" or "during the time it was observed 2005-2023" or something, but given that "currently" won't go out of date for another 20 years, you can leave it as is until you can think of a better way to write it. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

      Done! Nrco0e (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Origin: The circular orbits and relative component sizes of the Orcus–Vanth system resembles the Pluto–Charon binary system, which implies that these two systems formed and evolved similarly. it doesn't really imply that; it might suggest it, but in any case I'm not convinced this should be in wikivoice without some explanation of why. Is all of the content in this section fully agreed by the research community to be stated so confidently in wikivoice? (I will probably need to dive into sources for this section).
• Reading this section again, I think it might be better as "Origin theories" and with attribution.
• Size, mass, and density: Nevertheless, additional observations of the Orcus–Vanth system are needed to refine Vanth's mass and density before any conclusions could be made about Vanth's origin and interior structure. contradicts the certainty of the Origin section.
  • @Kusma: I've changed the Origin section to address your three points above. How is it now? Nrco0e (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Much better. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Light curve, rotation and shape: Considering that the Orcus–Vanth system formed and tidally evolved similarly to the doubly synchronous Pluto–Charon system now it seems certain again?
  • I've removed this statement since this is not what the cited source (Brown et al. 2023) said. Nrco0e (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• especially in the cold temperatures of the Kuiper belt where ice and rock is more rigid. any idea how cold? The German Wikipedia claims 44K but apparently without a source.
  • Added source. Nrco0e (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Excellent. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

First pass done! —Kusma (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Prose: some issues, see above.
• No major MOS issues. The lead section could be expanded a bit to cover all sections of the article though: a word or two on the naming would help, for example.
• Images: seem fine, but I'm wondering which of the three 2005-11-13 images File:Orcus-Vanth discovery brightened.png that we can see at [3] it is extracted from.
  • I've updated the description to elaborate on this. Nrco0e (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Article is reasonably broad given how much we know. Level of detail is OK. Single user article, stable and I can't detect neutrality issues.

Comments on referencing and source spotchecks to follow. —Kusma (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Sources are reliable and formatting is OK, and the use of blogs by the people involved is acceptable in the context.

Spotchecks on Special:Permanentlink/1196840986:

• 1b: ok
• 3a: ok
• 4a: ok
  • 6e: almost ok, but On 7 March 2017, another stellar occultation by Vanth was predicted and observed in the Americas and the Pacific Ocean sounds as if the prediction was made on the same day as the observation, which seems to be wrong.
• 8p: ok
• 10b: ok
• 23b: well, the simulations show that under certain hypotheses, something like the Orcus–Vanth system can emerge. That is not According to hydrodynamic simulations for this scenario, the impactor impacted Orcus obliquely at an angle greater than 45°.
  • Done, see first pass comments above. Nrco0e (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• 24: looks ok, but the article also says Vanth is significantly redder than Orcus (another unique property among KBO binaries), a characteristic that is currently difficult to understand in the framework of a formation by a giant impact. this could also be cited in the "Origin" discussion.
  • I've relocated this sentence from the surface section to the origin section. I figured that it'd be more appropriate to discuss the origin debate only in the origin section than the surface section. Nrco0e (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks are a pass; the only real issue is the depiction of origin theories as fact. —Kusma (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: I've gone through all your suggestions. Are there any more you would like to add or is this good? Nrco0e (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

All good now, thank you for this interesting article! —Kusma (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.