Talk:10 Hygiea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 10 Hygiea has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star 10 Hygiea is part of the Main asteroid belt series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Solar System (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

Spelling[edit]

Is it Hygeia or Hygiea? I've seen both on several sites. I've also seen Hygieia referring to the Greek goddess, but which is the proper spelling for the asteroid itself?

The authority on spelling of asteroid names is Dictionary of Minor Planet Names by Lutz D. Schmadel. His spellings are sometimes different from the normal English spelling of the eponymous deity's name. Unfortunately I don't know why. --Cam (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass[edit]

I have a newer source listing Mass ≈ 8.07×1019Kg [1]. I will wait 1 week for feedback before applying the updated information. Abyssoft 04:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting reference. Great that you found it ; Here is what a search in PDS and ADS for other mass estimates turned up:
Author Year Mass (in Solar mass × 10-12) note link
Scholl et al 1987 47 ± 23 [2][3]
Goffin 1991 49 ± 21 [4][5]
Kuznetsov 2001 17.4 ± 6.8 repeated by Kochetova see Kochetova
Michalak 2001 55.7 ± 7.0 the bolded "weighted mean without 7 Iris" on p 705 [6]
Kochetova 2004 50.1 ± 4.1 reference mentioned on the new webpage

[7]

Chesley et al 2005 45.4 ± 1.3 [8]
Chernetenko et al 2005 40.6 ± 1.9 newer calculation on the web [9]
Apart from Kuznetsov who was out of line for some reason, the rest seem to fall in the same ballpark so the rough mass is at least pretty confident − unlike some of the asteroids. The new reference appears to give the second most precise value, but the Chesley calculation gives by far the smallest error so I think we should keep that one; The Chelsey number also appears the most trustworthy by itself because it is based on only a single very close encounter unlike the others which average over a bunch of distant encounters that singly give a very imprecise values. In my opinion, the advantages of a paper that bases itself on just one encounter is that
  1. there is less chance that the perturbed body were also later/earlier perturbed by other asteroids, throwing the mass estimate off
  2. one imagines that the data there was much more carefully inspected for anomalies (that may indicate a systematic error) than a big bulk calculation over many bodies.
See e.g. the influence of the 7 Iris perturbation in the Michalak paper.

:I suggest to reference the new Kochetova paper along with Chelsey in the article, but to keep the current Chelsey value and add in its error estimate. In fact I'll do that now provisionally. :Ah, and Kochetova looks like it could be a real good reference for a bunch of other asteroids. Deuar 22:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i've just realised the web page had newer calculations than the paper. So, Chelsey (current value in the article) and the newer web value of Chernetenko+Kochetova+Shor give by far the smallest error estimates, but worryingly they don't overlap. I suggest averaging these two best estimates and quoting an error in the article that roughly covers both cases. That would be 43.0 ± 3.7. Looks like a really good reference :-) Deuar 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Images?[edit]

This page desperately needs an image...even if it is just a picture of it in a starfield. 70.177.71.206 17:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Possible Image per request @ http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/gallery/hygatlas.jpg Permission needs to be acquired first.

Permission is already given. Going up one level, at the bottom of the page: "Please note: The images in this gallery are released into the public domain. If any image or images are redisplayed or reproduced, please accompany the image or images with the following acknowledgment: "Atlas Image [or Atlas Image mosaic] obtained as part of the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation." If pressed for space, this acknowledgment could be shortened to, e.g., "Atlas Image [or Atlas Image mosaic] courtesy of 2MASS/UMass/IPAC-Caltech/NASA/NSF." However, all or part of the full acknowledgment is preferred. This is the stated policy of 2MASS."Michaelbusch 02:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Promotion[edit]

Just like 2002TX300 there is nothing here about how its up for promotion to dwarf planet status unless that data is old. Arkkeeper (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Last primary planet[edit]

There's nothing in the linked text to support the claim that this was the last asteroid discovered to be considered a primary planet. In any event I found a later source which lists later asteroids like 11 Parthenope as primary planets. --Cam (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:10 Hygiea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. Initially, it looks very good. I will be making some comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Are you using a consistent reference format?
What exactly do you mean? All the refs are {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}} with one exception Nergaal (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you link perihelion in the text? (I noticed later that you have it linked in the template.)
  • "This is much more than for the other objects in the "big four", the dwarf planet Ceres and the asteroids 2 Pallas and 4 Vesta." - needs a colon rather than a semicolon if you mean that the "big four" are the following bodies listed.
  • "Aside from being the smallest of the four, another important factor to this end is Hygiea's..." - to what end?
  • There are statements in Orbit and rotation that are unreferenced.

How does it look now? Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Mattisse (Talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)