Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Haumea (dwarf planet)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [1].

---

Haumea (dwarf planet)

Nominator(s): Serendipodous, Kwamikagami, Nergaal, Iridia

Here comes "Santa"! This article shows that it really exists. Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• very funny. Zginder 2008-10-12T23:22Z (UTC)
• Support ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I do generally support, but would like to see the prose massaged throughout. Here are a few points from the top, not all of which concern right/wrong.

• I know it's done sometimes in AmEng, but no one can tell me why you'd write "one-third" intead of the plain unhyphenated "a third".

To me, "one-third" sound more precise than "a third", rather as "twelve" is more precise than "a dozen". Haumea is almost exactly one-third the mass of Pluto, not just approximately a third. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that MOSLINK says not to link common geographical terms such as "United States".
• "Haumea is very unusual among the known trans-Neptunian objects especially due to its extreme elongation." Don't really like "very" and "especially" and "extreme"; they do perform different amplifications, but is it possible to remove the second? More elegant: "... objects for its".

Yes, very awkwardnessfull. Requires more massaging. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "due to"—repetition, although if you use my previous suggestion, that's fixed.
• "This elongation, along with other characteristics such as its unusually rapid rotation, high density, and ..." Can't it be "This elongation, along with its unusually rapid rotation, high density, and ...". We know they're characteristics, and the sentence is quite long enough without.
• "Have resulted from" ... a little more idiomatic, perhaps.
• "Haumea is classified as a dwarf planet, meaning that it is believed to be massive enough to"—please audit the whole text for repetitions. This is the second proximate "is believed to" (the first ellided), and also comes just after "is thought to". Why do we need it here, anyway, when you've said it's classified: "dwarf planet, thus massive enough ...".

Well, cause and effect are the opposite: it's a dwarf planet because it's massive enough, not massive enough because it's a dwarf planet. But you're right, the prose is awkwardnessfull. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please remove the bolding from the "Name" section; do that only in the lead. Tony (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, I think.Serendi^podous 11:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Made a few additional minor wording fixes. Restored "is believed" (as "presumed"), since Haumea has not been demonstrated to be a dwarf planet. kwami (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Query Thanks that was an interesting read.

• Is Pluto the most appropriate comparator for mass, would the Moon or the Earth not be more familiar to our intended audience?
• Towards the end it refers to a 0.1% chance, is that per year or per million years? ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Pluto is well-known enough. Everybody likes Pluto :-). The time is over the age of the Solar System. Added. Serendi^podous 11:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the timescale, I'll concede that Pluto is familiar in that everyone will have heard of it, but I'm not sure it's mass is well enough known to use as a scale - and elsewhere we use AU for distance so comparing to Earth has precedent. ϢereSpielChequers 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Pluto is a KBO, like Haumea. In that sense, it's best to compare like with like. Earth is in a totally different league to either Pluto or Haumea; people don't often grasp just how tiny KBOs are. Earth is five hundred times more massive than Pluto and 1500 times more massive than Haumea; such a comparison would be too rough to be particularly useful. Serendi^podous 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK that gives me a sense of the size of the thing, would it be possible to say something like "it is a third the mass of Pluto, and 1500 times smaller than the Earth." instead of "a third the mass of Pluto." ϢereSpielChequers 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in a footnote. Serendi^podous 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A comparison to our moon would also be worthwhile. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the footnote, I agree with Kwami that the moon might also be useful. May I suggest that the footnote could be expanded to contain both the relative size of the moon and Pluto and if its been worked out the minimum/maximum size of dwarf planets? My reading of the article is that "Nonetheless, its gravity is believed sufficient for it to have relaxed into hydrostatic equilibrium, thereby meeting the definition of a dwarf planet." means that it is close to the minimum size of a dwarf planet - it would be nice if the footnote said how close. ϢereSpielChequers 11:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no maximum size for a dwarf planet. A dwarf planet could be as large as Jupiter if it was surrounded by other Jupiter-sized objects. Nor is Haumea near the minimum size; it is stretched out by its rapid rotation. Serendi^podous 11:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In that case if there is a minimum size for a dwarf planet it would be relevant to add to that footnote - something like "Haumea is x times the minimum size for a dwarf planet" - but maybe we should shift this discussion to the article talk page as it is way too pedantic to affect the FAC ϢereSpielChequers 14:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The minimum size for a dwarf planet is when it has enough mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium. There are some issues with this; hydrostatic equilibrium relies on more than just mass. Composition plays a role (icy objects reach hydrostatic equilibrium at a lower mass than rocky objects) as does temperature (warmer objects achieve hydrostatic equilibrium a lot more easily than colder ones). So for right now the IAU is simply saying that if an object's absolute magnitude is less than 1, it's a dwarf planet, because that means it HAS to be above the threshold. This leaves out a lot of really large objects, but we'll have to wait until we can develop telescopes powerful enough to resolve the discs of objects the size of Texas 3 billion miles away. Serendi^podous 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Thanks for answering my pedanticisms, and good luck for the FAC. I've learned a lot from this article and I'm sure our readers will as well. ϢereSpielChequers 16:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as JPL, IAU, USGS, ABC-CLIO, etc. in the references.

• Okay, what makes http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/05/moon-shadow-monday-fixed.html a reliable source? I realise this is the discoverers website, but it looks like a blog entry.

• What makes http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/index.html a reliable source? Also, this is ref 38 and it's lacking a publisher.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ABC-CLIO is the name of a publisher. They don't appear to use their full name professionally. There is more than one reference to Brown's blog in this article; if that one's a bad source, then they all are. But, since this is the blog of the person who actually discovered the object, I think it can be considered a valid primary source. Serendi^podous 18:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Brown is top in his field, and has tons of published material in refereed journals. As such, his blog can by Wiki standards also be considered a reliable reference. We just need to be careful of areas where he does not have expertise, such as his suspicions of the Spanish team, which we should always be sure are represented as his opinion.

As for Johnston's Archive, that's just a compilation of published data. We can cite the original sources, and provide Johnston's Archive as a convenient place for readers to see it in more detail. I don't know how notable Johnston himself is. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone with access to the originals should do this, and verify that they match. kwami (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I never liked the line the ref was citing anyway, so I removed it. Serendi^podous 07:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the Brown site out for other reviewers to decide on their own. The main concern is that it's not a peer-reviewed source, so it can't really back up anything contentious. It's certainly an EXCELLENT source for his own opinions and feelings, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images: they pretty much check out, however Image:EightTNOs.png uses images not found in the basis image; where did these images come from? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they were added by Wiki users. Serendi^podous 21:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The individual images are used in their respective articles. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This image issue still needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. kwami (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, how? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the Commons images it was compiled from. kwami (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm severely copy editing the section of physical characteristics, which therefore needs to be re-reviewed. In the second paragraph of Determining Haumea's size, shape, and composition, we say that we calculate its density from its shape. In the third paragraph, we say that we calculate its shape from its density. Needs a fix or at least clarification. kwami (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Also more citation notes added. Iridia (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - this is very well done. I read the entire article, checked some of the sources and made a couple of minor wording corrections. I was very impressed with the prose, length, layout, tables and wikilinks to daughter pages which I felt were also well done. The only issue I was not completely happy with was reference number 13 which is a blog. WP:RS does not consider blogs a reliable source. Is there some other source where you can find that info besides that one? NancyHeise ^talk 04:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Brown's blog is used to discuss his recent occultation experiments, which haven't been included in official literature as yet. Serendi^podous 06:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Informal comments by acknowledged experts in the field are considered acceptably reliable refs when the info is not otherwise available. Brown doesn't publish until he can really lay out the data, so up-to-date info will most often be informal. kwami (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically it is a trade between comprehensiveness and reliability. It that source would be removed, the article would lose some important information and I personally would prefer more when not that much is known anyways. Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know we can use self published cites in articles about themselves but I'm not sure they are OK to use in an article about something else. I agree the information is very interesting and makes the article a good read. I would like for it to stay there personally but if there is some way to get a different source it would be better. Isn't there a news interview or some scientific journal that covered that subject? NancyHeise ^talk 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean what is now ref 15? That was used once for a quote, which is appropriate, and once for a description of the composition, which was also covered in the following ref, so I simply deleted the second blog cite. kwami (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a blog; it's Mike Brown's personal website at CalTech. I've used it before without complaint. I don't think it should be an issue here. And anyway, the structure of Haumea should be referenced. Serendi^podous 21:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From the abstract, it looks like the current ref covers the composition. Am I mistaken? kwami (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a conference proceeding (from 4 days ago!) mentioning the mutual occultation events and their timing, so I will change the reference. Iridia (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool! kwami (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Very weak oppose for now, on prose. I couldn't even get through the Classifications paragraph because I was being hit on the head with equivocation and wordiness: "is presumed..."; "is considered..."; "Since it is not demonstrated to be...". (That last construction is really ugly.) You don't have to say it is considered to be a dwarf planet. It is a dwarf planet; it's been listed as such. Further, the dwarf planet status is raised and answered in the first sentence and then raised and answered again in the fourth sentence. The two mentions should be combined and the section split into two paras. And the article as a whole should be audited for wordiness of this sort.

This is a very weak oppose because I haven't gone through the whole thing. I'll do my best to give an independent c/e. Marskell (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not known to be a dwarf planet. It has been assumed to be one for naming purposes, which is not the same thing. It probably is a DP, and for all practical purposes we can treat it as one, but we do need to equivocate in the classification. Being listed as a DP does not mean it fits the IAU definition of a DP. kwami (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be vague; the body that defines dwarf planets has declared it is a dwarf planet. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Then we need to redefine DP as anything that the IAU declares to be a DP, not a body in hydrostatic equilibrium. Or instead of saying it's presumed to be a DP, we could say that it's been declared to be a DP. Haumea is different from the cases of Ceres and Pluto, which we know from direct observation to fit the physical definition. In the case of Haumea, the IAU declared that anything beyond a certain magnitude will be taken as a DP for naming purposes, then after they named it, they declared it was a DP. But it has not been shown to meet their definition for a DP. kwami (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I guess "Its status as a dwarf planet means it is presumed ...", as you now have it, is good enough. kwami (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need an epistemological argument to break out here, but Ckatz is quite right. It's been listed by the IAU as a dwarf planet, therefore it is a dwarf planet. The section has improved. Marskell (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I just agree? kwami (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So is this still an oppose vote? Nergaal (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just asked Marskell on his talk page if he wanted to follow up on this, since we've attempted to address his objection. kwami (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Quite the interesting nom. Anyhowz, Serendi seems to have tightened up the prose as usual, seems pretty good. Great collaborative work, guys! —Ceranthor^(Sing) 01:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Marskell (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments—It's mostly decent, with a couple of minor concerns.
  • "Other large TNOs such as [what?] appear" (markup typo- fixed Serendi^podous 18:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC))
  • "Haumea is the largest member of a TNO collisional family, similar to asteroid families: a group of objects with similar orbital parameters and common physical characteristics, presumably with a common origin in a disruptive impact of the progenitor object of Haumea." To me this sentence seems mangled and ambiguous. (For example, is Haumea the largest member of any collisional family?) It switches back and forth between a general discussion and a focus on Haumea. Can this sentence be copy-edited? (Reworded and shortened. Serendi^podous 18:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)}
  • I'm not real happy about the Dimensions entry in the infobox, as the multiple entries may be confusing. But I don't see a better alternative. (Added origins of separate measurements Serendi^podous 18:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

  Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Looks good now.—RJH (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: please check the dabs in the dab link finder in the toolbox. Author names in citations are inconsistent. Some are first name last name, some are last name, first name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Checked and fixed. Serendi^podous 04:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack. One thing I forgot to mention last night: Classification section suggests there is no orbital resonance with Neptune. Orbit section goes on to say there might be one. Some sentence clarifying this is needed. Perhaps: "Should a resonance be proven, Haumea would qualify as a resonant trans-Neptunian object rather than a classic KBO." Marskell (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

added. Serendi^podous 10:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack withdrawn :). Marskell (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's comprehensive, well written. Some minor points though: in ref 20, the language is indicated twice and external links need a better presentation/description. Cenarium ^Talk 00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1st point: done. 2nd point: pls explain. kwami (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been addressed now. The Johnston's Archive seems reputed in the field so it shouldn't require more description. Thanks, Cenarium ^Talk 15:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments—Again, I'm generally supportive, and admiring of the expertise of whoever the author is (I don't look). But a spot-check revealed that polishing is in order throughout.

• "The size of an object can be determined from its measured optical magnitude, its distance, and its albedo." So the size has to be measured, but the others don't? Isn't measurement implied?clarified
• "not known" --> "unknown"fixed
• "the alternation of side-view–end-view–side-view as seen from Earth"—oh, the en dashes and hyphens are correct, but it is clumsy all the same. Is the third compound item necessary? I'd almost be inclined to use a slash to contrast better with the hyphens.fixed
• "Haumea. If Haumea"fixed
• Snake sentence: "This range covers the values of silicate minerals such as olivine and pyroxene, which dominate the rocky objects of the Solar System, suggesting that the bulk of Haumea is rock, covered with a relatively thin layer of ice." At the very least, can the comma after "rock" go? And can we have "... System; this suggests ..."?fixed Tony (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:2003 EL61.jpg - I'm wondering how necessary this non-free image is - how much does the reader gain from it that they do not get from the free images? I think that the rationale could be more explicit about the value of this image.
• Image:EightTNOs.png - As far as I can tell, the issue identified by Fuchs above has not been solved. The source images do not cover all of the planets/moons in the constructed chart.

These should be relatively easy to solve. Awadewit (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been addressed. (1) There is no free image of the Haumean system. Therefore it is required for all of the information obtained from it. (2) Yes, the composite is completely sourced. If you think the sources do not cover all of the objects, please specify. kwami (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I think that perhaps my objection to the non-free image has been misunderstood. I understand that there is no free image. However, I'm not sure that the reader gains anything in particular from seeing this image that cannot be gained from the other images in the article and the text in the article itself. That is, I am unconvinced that we need to use this non-free image. What information does it convey that is not conveyed anywhere else in the article? Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

2) Eris, Makemake, Haumea - These objects have different names in the source file. As someone who is totally unfamiliar with this field, how can I be sure that they have been labeled correctly? Can we get a reference for the names? Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the Keck image, my feeling is that it is very important to include "real" images wherever possible. This discussion has come up many times before, such as with the best-quality-available image at Pluto. It is directly related to the fact that modern science is severely limited in terms of visuals of distant astronomical objects. "Artist's impressions" are useful, but they are also "best guesses" as to how things are, and can inadvertently suggest a greater knowledge of the subject than we actually have. While the "real" images may be lower quality, they do help to demonstrate the challenge in obtaining visuals - and thus in some small way help to illustrate the vast distances (and difficulties) involved in astronomical studies, even in the Solar System. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I would actually suggest that the "real" image - despite its resolution - should replace the "artist's impression" in the infobox, as with all other planets and dwarf planets (except Makemake, which does not appear to have one at all.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz, this is really an issue for the talk page, but we have two conflicting agenda here. For reliability, we should stick to actual images and educated schematics (as opposed to artistic guesswork). However, for general accessibility, we should have an aesthetically pleasing image at the top of the page. Therefore I think the artistic guesswork in the info boxes is a good thing over all. kwami (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You can visually verify that the names and former designations of Eris, former designation 2003 UB313, Makemake, former designation 2005 FY9, and Haumea, former designation 2003 EL61, match up on the image. The references for the names can all be found here, at the Minor Planets Center: just type Eris, Makemake, and Haumea in the box and click "get ephemerides", and beside each one is the link "show naming citation". (I had the direct links here before, but it seems they aren't accessible except through this longer way). Iridia (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the explanation about "real" vs. "artistic" images is excellent - a condensed version of that should be placed at Image:2003 EL61.jpg - that is clearly the primary reason we need this non-free image. Awadewit (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also add the links that show the former designations and new names to the image description of Image:EightTNOs.png, along with the instructions. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:EightTNOs.png amended. Iridia (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:2003 EL61.jpg amended. Serendi^podous 09:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The "purpose of use" at Image:2003 EL61.jpg has not been amended. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All right. How about now? Serendi^podous 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks good - all image issues have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.