Talk:Asteroid/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 10:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My notes:

I think the lead needs some work. Given the importance of the topic, it should be as comprehensible as possible. Stringency could be improved, and terms like "volatiles" should at least be linked. The last two paragraphs of the lead seem to specific, consider to shorten them. Furthermore, the lead should state the difference of asteroids to both comets and meteroids.

I'm not sure if its the best idea to start with naming conventions. Best start with an overview, or definition/terminology.

After reading the section "Naming", I had unanswered questions. For example: Who names asteroids, and which names are chosen, are there conventions, or is an astronomer allowed to chose any name he wants? A lot of names seem to stem from greek mythology? The list of symbols might be a bit to much, as this should be an overview article. The list in astronomical symbols might be enough?

First paragraph of the discovery section: I'm wondering about the note system. Note 1 reads "Ceres is the largest asteroid and is now classified as a dwarf planet. All other asteroids are now classified as small Solar System bodies along with comets, centaurs, and the smaller trans-Neptunian objects." This seems superfluous, as the reader can easily access this information in the article on Ceres. On the other hand, the paragraph ends with an lengthy quotation to stress a single point: "for example, the Annual of Scientific Discovery for 1871, page 316, reads "Professor J. Watson has been awarded by the Paris Academy of Sciences, the astronomical prize, Lalande foundation, for the discovery of eight new asteroids in one year. The planet Lydia (No. 110), discovered by M. Borelly at the Marseilles Observatory [...] M. Borelly had previously discovered two planets bearing the numbers 91 and 99 in the system of asteroids revolving between Mars and Jupiter"." This seems to much for an overview article, and for this quotation, a Note might make sense.

One main aspect of the topic, the impact events, is lacking completely.

Many parts lack citations. Verifiability is prerequisite for reaching GA status according to the criteria.

Closing note: Thanks to suggest such an important topic. However, I do not think this article currently meets the GA criteria, as points 2 and 3 are not fulfilled yet. Therefore I will close the nomination now, in the hope that the problems will be solved and that an much-improved version of the article will reappear at GAN soon. Please contact me if there are any questions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]