Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/10 Hygiea/1

10 Hygiea

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are three citation needed tags and an update template has been placed under the "Orbit and rotation" section since 2019. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try) Nrco0e (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging recent contributors @Kwamikagami and Double sharp: Nrco0e (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is too out-of-date to be a GA. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be too much work to get this back into shape, since we don't know much about Hygiea, but agreed that work does need to be done. There was that claim that it's a DP, which AFAIK hasn't gone anywhere, with it believed to be a re-accreted body instead. I imagine that other updates will be relatively minor. There's a claim in the intro that there's debate over whether it's the largest C type asteroid, but no explanation as to why (Ceres sometimes being classified as 'G'). — kwami (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e, Kwamikagami, and Double sharp: does anyone have the time or energy to work on this article, or should it be delisted? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit just now, and removed all citations from the lead.

If someone who knows what they're doing could calculate the axial tilt from the polar ascension and declension, that would be appreciated. (I just left it as "...".) — kwami (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any major problems, so keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.