Talk:US researchers find a large asteroid held together by forces other than gravity
Review of revision 2808270 [Not ready] edit
 |
Revision 2808270 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I did quite a bit of copyediting to make this article more readable. Nonetheless, I have to fail it. Half of the stuff in the article isn't mentioned in either of the two sources. Where does it come from? Not to mention there was a completely factually incorrect bit in the article about comparing 21_Lutetia to (29075) 1950 DA. They are as different from each other as Earth and Mercury. There is no reasonable comparison that can be made between the two. Not to mention that the conclusion drawn from the comparison was just... wrong. The article said that by comparing the brightness of (29075) 1950 DA to the brightness of 21_Lutetia, scientists had managed to discover that they were similar to each other, and thus (29075) 1950 DA was a rubble pile. The problem with that is that Lutetia is a 100km across solid monster. It isn't a 1.1km across rubble pile. As I said, there is no comparison. Anyway, I removed all the bits that were factually incorrect, but I can't pass the article until I have sources for the material in the article. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 2808270 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I did quite a bit of copyediting to make this article more readable. Nonetheless, I have to fail it. Half of the stuff in the article isn't mentioned in either of the two sources. Where does it come from? Not to mention there was a completely factually incorrect bit in the article about comparing 21_Lutetia to (29075) 1950 DA. They are as different from each other as Earth and Mercury. There is no reasonable comparison that can be made between the two. Not to mention that the conclusion drawn from the comparison was just... wrong. The article said that by comparing the brightness of (29075) 1950 DA to the brightness of 21_Lutetia, scientists had managed to discover that they were similar to each other, and thus (29075) 1950 DA was a rubble pile. The problem with that is that Lutetia is a 100km across solid monster. It isn't a 1.1km across rubble pile. As I said, there is no comparison. Anyway, I removed all the bits that were factually incorrect, but I can't pass the article until I have sources for the material in the article. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Reply to reviewer. edit
- Half of the stuff in the article isn't mentioned in either of the two sources. Where does it come from?
Frankly, it comes from their own article. Maybe, I am misusing the access I have to scientific journals, since it is completely out-of-topic for my current studies. I will try to clarify the difficult-to-understand points, and look for a more open-to-public source.
- Not to mention there was a completely factually incorrect bit in the article about comparing 21 Lutetia to (29075) 1950 DA. They are as different from each other as Earth and Mercury. There is no reasonable comparison that can be made between the two.
They are, indeed, different. But, both of them have low radar albedo (that is, they do not reflect the radar radio waves as much as a typical M-type asteroid would), and the non-metallic composition would have been puzzling, if it was not for the Rosetta observations of 21 Lutetia. Thus, the comparison of spectral properties allows to conclude that 1950DA has composition similar to 21 Lutetia: enstatite chondrite with grain density of 3.55 g/cm³.
While 21 Lutetia has high density and possible porosity of 10-15%, low density of 1950DA (when the same material and grain density as observed on 21 Lutetia are taken as known) "implies a macro-porosity of 51±19% and indicates that it is a rubble-pile asteroid".
- Why was it assumed, to start with, that 1950 DA is an M-type asteroid?
Spectral observations (not specified exactly what kind of spectral observations) of 1950DA indicate either an E- or M-type classification in the Tholen classification. However, its low optical albedo and low radar circular polarization ratio rule out the E-type classification.
- About comparisons...
It can be noted that 1950 DA and Moon are very much different. But, values of thermal inertia are comparable; therefore, the regolith on surface of 1950DA is considered similar to the lunar regolith.
Alright, I found a couple of sources, will add them. Possibly send closed-access article to scoop@wikinewsie.org. Wikiwide (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, the bit about Lutertia makes a bit more sense in that context, but that's not what you said in your original article. You said, "Low radar albedo of 1950DA is similar to that of 21 Lutetia, previously explored by Rosetta spacecraft, implying that 1950DA is a rubble-pile asteroid." That implies things that aren't true. Be precise in your language.
- A couple other things: first off, paid sources aren't allowed. If anyone can't access it, it doesn't count as a source. Secondly, literally half of what you had in the article wasn't listed in any sources. I assume you've fixed this, but I don't have time to check right now, but I'll check tomorrow. Stuff that's in the article *has* to be in the sources. This is often a problem with articles, and we can't pass articles with unsourced material. — Gopher65talk 03:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm far less grumpy than I was last night. I'll review this again this morning. At a glance it looks better than it did after the last review.— Gopher65talk 12:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Review of revision 2811721 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 2811721 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Much better in the rewrite, though I'm still hitting paywall issues (I don't have access to Nature). The bit about Lutetia isn't explicitly mentioned in the sources, but it is (kinda) listed in the sources to the sources.... which I can't access either. It's much better explained in the article though:). Please no paywalled sources in the future. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 2811721 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Much better in the rewrite, though I'm still hitting paywall issues (I don't have access to Nature). The bit about Lutetia isn't explicitly mentioned in the sources, but it is (kinda) listed in the sources to the sources.... which I can't access either. It's much better explained in the article though:). Please no paywalled sources in the future. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Pizero wanted me to specify that paywalls go against policy, and that we don't normally publish articles that use paywalled sources (like Nature). Everyone has to be able to read the sources to verify what is written. I already passed this one, and I found a way around Nature's paywall (kinda:P) to read the parts you referenced, but in the future articles with sources like that won't be accepted. — Gopher65talk 13:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)