 | A fact from Kamchatka meteor appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 June 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Issues edit
The title of this page and the first sentence should probably follow the same style as Chelyabinsk meteor. ie "The Kamchatka meteor was an impact event..."
As there are no reports of visual observations on the ground I would avoid superbolide which is a vague definition based on apparent magnitude.
RE: the phrase "and the third largest recorded meteor since 1900 after that and the Tunguska event, likely caused by a 50-100 meter asteroid or comet.[5]" The BBC article does not mention since 1900, the Tunguska event, or the diameter of the Tunguska impactor. The footnote should be moved. Other sources are needed to establish third largest recorded meteor since 1900.
The reference to twitter should be replaced by a more reliable source such as Forbes which mentions Peter Brown's tweet.
--mikeu talk 20:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that the lead should probably be structured to reference the name used for the article. Probably that will also mean a move, unless more reliable sources can be found that this object is and is going to be called the Kamchatka superbolide. Lithopsian (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the problem with this object is that it by virtue of being an important article, is a largely unprecedented event. Sure we've had large fireball events before but those always had some form of direct proximate observation of them. I gave it the name because there didn't seem to be any name given for it in any of the news releases, and it didn't seem to fall along the typical lines of a bolide or fireball given its comparatively large size and the fact that the next larger thing, the Chelyabinsk meteor, is stated quite confidently in the beginning sentence: "The Chelyabinsk meteor was a superbolide..." so if a superbolide falls in the ocean and nobody's around to hear it, is it still a superbolide? I'd say if the question is as subjective as that, we shouldn't be putting it as the very opening descriptor of something as significant as the chelyabinsk event. Of course, this all depends on if news outlets and/or scientific consensus feels like calling it that as well, or something else entirely. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- As the Sutter's Mill meteorite (roughly 4-meters in diameter) was a superbolide, I have no doubt this 10-meter object was. -- Kheider (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The reliable sources consistently use the word "meteor" in the news article titles. I suggested the reanme per WP:COMMONNAME. The word "fireball" is the most commonly used term in the body of news reports, and is often attributed to NASA. The term "bolide" rarely appears; only the Forbes source mentions it (just once.) The IAU doesn't make much of a distinction between fireball and bolide. There are many sources to attribute the event as an example of a fireball. There are far few sources to cite for bolide. I can't find single RS that describes it as a superbolide.
Article titles should be based on how RS and experts refer to the article's subject. While this impact might meet the IAU definition of bolide or superbolide - the sources haven't (yet) described it as such. I don't see any urgency to rename as there will likely be new RS published in the next few days. Probably best to wait for those. --mikeu talk 13:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be making up the name. We should reflect the name that is used for the object or event in verifiable sources. News releases aren't ideal, but when they're the most reliable sources then we should use them. And cite them! Deciding that a previous event was a superbolide, so this one must be, is the very definition of original research. So we have name, or at least a widely-used description, then use it in the lead. This isn't rocket science, although rocket science was required to discover it ... Lithopsian (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- A very superficial search reveals a small number of sources referring to this event as a superbolide, and literally hundreds of thousands calling it simply a meteor. No doubt almost all are just repeating some primary source, nevertheless that is what people are going to be seeing. Until something more "official" comes along, Kamchatka meteor seems by far the better-known title. Lithopsian (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Meteoroids are less than 1 meter in diameter. Common bolides (apmag −14) are not much larger than a basketball. At apmag −17, superbolides are only 100 times brighter than the full moon. As one of the largests events known, Kamchatka was certainly 100 times brighter than the full moon. -- Kheider (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, there's no doubt it meets the technical definition. Earth gets hit with superbolides (some prefer to hyphenate that) about twice a month [1], [2], events of this magnitude have a recurrence interval of 30 years. That's why it may need to be moved again when the papers come out. Geogene (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Another issue is that the 7° is relative to vertical, not horizontal, so it was actually a very STEEP trajectory, not at all as in this article "The object entered at an extremely shallow angle of only 7 degrees"109.57.166.209 (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- What's your source on that? The reference only said "at a very small angle at seven degrees" so there's clearly some ambiguity there, but the smoke trail in the image doesn't seem to be anywhere near near-vertical unless it was aligned extremely conveniently to Himawari 8. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm no expert in using this system, but anyway, https://www.forbes.com/sites/robinandrews/2019/03/18/a-meteor-caused-a-huge-explosion-over-the-bering-sea-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/#c40af1841911 According to most of the articles I have read, the black "smoke trail" is actually the shadow. The path/plume of the meteor is the orange vertical bit. The plume is slowly moving to the left, while the shadow moves "up" in the animation, because of the movement of both the plume and the sun over time. 109.57.166.209 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here's an additional link, from NASA, which explains what we see in the image from the Terra Satellite. The dark "trail" is a shadow. The orange cloud is the actual trail/plume. The NASA animation shows this quite clearly. There's a link to the animation on the same page. It is not the same animation as the one on Wikipedia (which is from a Japanese Satellite). Link: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA22825 hope this makes it clear 109.57.31.116 (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- What's your source on that? The reference only said "at a very small angle at seven degrees" so there's clearly some ambiguity there, but the smoke trail in the image doesn't seem to be anywhere near near-vertical unless it was aligned extremely conveniently to Himawari 8. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Another issue is that the 7° is relative to vertical, not horizontal, so it was actually a very STEEP trajectory, not at all as in this article "The object entered at an extremely shallow angle of only 7 degrees"109.57.166.209 (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)