Wikipedia:Peer review/225088 Gonggong/archive1

225088 Gonggong

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done some changes in the article's prose in preparation for FA nomination and would like some feedback on the article's comprehensiveness and coherence. In addition, it would be helpful to check if I have missed anything regarding the FA criteria.

Thanks, Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• Reviewing for coherence as a layman   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• I feel like the explanation of scattered disc in the lead is more confusing than just not glossing scattered disc. It would be better to say something like "is a likely dwarf planet in the Solar System beyond Neptune, and is a member of the scattered disc". Eccentricity would be brought up in the next sentence with the orbital resonance   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the lead a bit and mentioned high eccentricity and inclination. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• "which typically have rotation periods around 12 hours" could we say "days" here instead?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

12 hours would be "half a day", and I find the phrase "less than half a day" to be somewhat a mouthful for the prose. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No, instead of "rotation periods" you say "days"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I find the word "day" to be rather ambiguous when it refers to rotation. Perhaps simply saying "typically have periods around 12 hours" would sound as fine? Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 06:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• "2007 OR10" I get where 2007 comes from, but how did "the latter half of July" come across in OR10?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made a note explaining this in the article. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• "The satellite will not be named by the hosts of the naming poll, as this privilege is reserved for its discoverers" future tense?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed "will not" to "would not" since the poll is already over. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• "2007 OR10 is among the reddest objects known" reddest celestial object? Trans-Neptunian object? Solar System object?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• I'm confused how we know it's red. Did we take a picture and it showed up as red? Did we use proxy data?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The color is based on its reflectance spectrum. I've edited the article to clarify that the red spectral slope of OR10 is where more light is being reflected at these wavelengths, hence its red appearance. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is there an estimated temperature range for the dwarf planet from it's farthest and closest distance from the sun?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am unable to find any reliable souces that state OR10's temperature. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Do we know there're tholins or do we infer?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It's inferred, but its quite likely that tholins account for OR10's red coloration. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• "and approximately the size of Pluto's moon Charon" I don't think this is worded right   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• "However, Iapetus is not in equilibrium despite being 1,470 km (910 mi) in diameter,[43] so this remains just a possibility." any reason why ref 43 doesn't go to the end of the sentence?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• What's the range of error on the 2013 estimate?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• You can convert 1535 km with the error range into miles (just not with a template)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I decided to amend the value uncertainty for miles. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Also put in the error range for miles, so it'd be 1535+75
−225 km (954+46
−140 mi) for example. You need to give the conversion into miles for everything in metrics   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Sorry for the late reply, anyway I've done most of your suggestions and made some comments. Are there any other issues and feedback on the article that have not been discussed? Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Graham Beards

A fascinating article. I have some minor comments for your consideration.

• "2007 OR10 is red in color" why say "in color" when it's just red? Y
• "2007 OR10 rotates slowly compared to other trans-Neptunian objects" - perhaps say what the rotation is? Y
• Here "Schwamb identified 2007 OR10 by comparing multiple images using the blinking technique." the word "multiple" is redundant. Y
• "red surface color" - again we have a redundant "color". Y
• Here "On 29 May 2019, the discovery team announced Gonggong as the winning name, it having gained 46 percent of the 280,000 votes casted", to avoid the clumsy "it" I suggest "Having gained 46 percent of the 280,000 votes, on 29 May 2019, the discovery team announced Gonggong as the winning name." Also, "casted" is redundant. Y
• Here this link is odd ."2007 OR10 is among the reddest trans-Neptunian objects" "Reddest" is linked and not "trans-Neptunian object". Y (Removed wikilink)
• In this example "he presence of methane frost would account for its red color" "red" is redundant because we already know this now. Y
• Why is the wide field photograph not used as the Lead image? It's much clearer.

The only available Wide Field Camera images of 2007 OR10 have annotations. I don't really have issues with the annotations although it would have been great if there was a wider version of the image without the arrow. I've uploaded a cropped version of the WFC3 image, but I honestly don't like the smaller aspect ratio since the arrow would appear more visible.

• Lastly, what makes "Mike Brown's Planets" a reliable source? It looks like a blog to me.

That is Michael Brown's personal website at Caltech. Most of the content there is related to his academic career, as well as his discoveries of trans-Neptunian objects like 2007 OR10. I consider it a primary source of information especially for 2007 OR10's discovery and nickname, and other Wikipedia articles on his discoveries like Haumea and Makemake do use his website as a source.

I hope this is useful. Graham Beards (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Thanks for the feedback! Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)