Talk:243 Ida

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 243 Ida is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 29, 2009.
WikiProject Solar System (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-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.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 243 Ida is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 

Binary Asteroid?[edit]

Should this be called a binary asteroid? The link defines a binary asteroid as one where the two objects orbit their common center of gravity, presumably this designation is the same as that for binary planets, when that center of gravity exists outside the body of the largest object (as is supposedly the case with Pluto and Charon.) If this is the case, then Ida and Dactyl would not be a binary asteroid as Dactyle is very small and the center of gravity in the Ida/Dactyle system is almost certainly within the body of Ida. In fact, references to Ida/Dactyl in other wikipedia articles list it as the first asteroid found to have a moon, rather than a binary asteroid - and in those articles about Ida, the link to asteroids with moons goes to a page describing those rather than to the binary asteroid description page.

I am not changing this because I personally do not know if in fact the center of gravity is within the body of Ida or not, but if someone else does and it indeed is, then this should be changed. Jafafa Hots 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the satellite is small or comparable to the size of the parent body; all asteroids consisting of two objects are binary asteroids. Similarly, asteroid 87 Sylvia is considered a triple asteroid although its satellites are tiny compared to the parent body.--Jyril 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

where is this asteroid located in the solar system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.202.128 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparent magnitude?[edit]

The infobox lacks this, although there is a number of absolute magnitude which is unreferenced. Pomona17 (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The apparent magnitude will vary as the Earth moves closer and further away Modest Genius talk 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Many asteroid articles contain a range of maximum to minimum magnitudes. The article used to contain this before Wronkiew and I started overhauling it, but it was not referenced so I left it out for now. It seems to be correct but I'm still hoping to find a reliable source. Reyk YO! 02:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I am the author of that information. (I waited for the massive edits to calm down before jumping in. The article looks great.) The APmag range is 13.44 to 15.90 from 1950 to 2100. You can generate this data using JPL Horizons.
  • 1. Set the Time Span to 1950-01-01 to 2100-01-01.
  • 2. Go to Table Settings and deselect 1, 20, 23, and 24 to clear the output screen of clutter. Click "Use Selected Settings"
  • 3. Click Generate and wait 30 seconds.
  • 4. Text search (Ctrl-F) 13.44 (brightest and min value) and 15.90 (dimmest and max value). I added this info to the article on 9 October 2008. -- Kheider (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:243 Ida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Very detailed. Could make its way into FA very shortly.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Not sure if the "History" section can be expanded. Two sentences look too short to me.
    I did a lot of searching around for more information, and there doesn't seem to be any. Would it be preferable to merge the discovery section into the exploration section? Reyk YO! 04:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    I have a few ideas for expansion. Your suggestion to merge the first two sections sounds fine. Alternately, we could expand it to include later observations, for example the spectroscopic survey that resulted in the S-type classification. This book has some more detail on Ida's naming. Also, we could mention that Palisa Regio was named after Ida's discoverer. Wronkiew (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    I added more information about the spectroscopic measurements and Ida's naming. The section now contains four sentences. Wronkiew (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    I am concerned with the usage of File:NWA869Meteorite.jpg. First, how does its use help the reader understand the article? Second, although you can see the hand of a person clearly in the original version, I suspect it is a possible copyvio image because the uploader claims that he releases the license under GFDL, it's rather uncommon for an average person to come into a meteorite, identify it, or even allowed to hold it in his palm.
    I'll remove the image for now and see if I can contact the uploader for proof of ownership. He claims to be Herbert Raab, the author of one of the papers we referenced. I like the image because it illustrates the type of meteorite being discussed in that section. Wronkiew (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    OTRS received confirmation of ownership from the copyright holder, so I restored the image. Wronkiew (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Passed as GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

20 times smaller?[edit]

What is meant when it is stated that Dactyl is 20 times smaller than Ida. The diameter is significantly less than one twentieth. Is is referring to mass? Maybe this should be stated.

N.B. if Dactyl is a twentieth of the mass then is a lot denser than Ida. Yaris678 (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No the diameter is ~1/20th. You need to compare the average diameters. Ida has an average diameter (geometric mean) of only ~27km, which is about 20x greater than 1.4km -- Kheider (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The article states that "Ida has an average diameter of 31.4 km ". I would also say that 1.4km it not "a little more than a kilometer", is is significantly more. Maybe the issue here is that the 1/20 statement is based on the geometric mean and the other statements are based on something else. If this is the case then perhaps it should be made consistent. Yaris678 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You may be over thinking this. Ida has a geometric mean diameter of 26.9km (3rd root of "53.6x24.0x15.2"). The article simply lists the diameter as 31.4. There is more than one way of averaging a set of numbers. Besides these numbers are probably a "best fit ellipsoid". Either way, 26.9/1.4=19.2 and 31.4/1.4=22.4. Both numbers are adequate to state in the lede that "Dactyl is about 20 times smaller than Ida, at a little more than a kilometer in diameter". The lede should not go into excessive details/complications. -- Kheider (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If the calculation were 31.4/1.4 I would say that 20 would be a reasonable approximation. However, 1.4 is not "a little more than a kilometer", it is 40% more! Perhaps that is where the problem lies in the article. If it instead said the diameter of Dactyl was "approximately 1.4 kilometers" I would have no problem. Yaris678 (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I see you have made a change along the above lines. I am happy with the new words. Yaris678 (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Orbital speed error?[edit]

In the article, the average orbital speed is said to be 0.2036°/s, and in the body of the article, the orbital period is listed as 4.84 years. My back-of-the-envelope reckoning makes me thing that the average orbital speed should be 0.2036°/d, however I'm no astrophysicist, so I don't want to make the change without someone else verifying my math. Croquesaveur (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Most-Emailed-Photos/ss/1756;_ylt=AvenoyFpnnWAM2gDdnYbmB3mWMcF#photoViewer=/091230/photos_sc_afp/d1f1bf032c1d3093992fbdd542a7001a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.233.12 (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Catena[edit]

According Wanglesa some Dactyl craters in catena have been caused by debris from Ida, but this does not seem to be the case, then these catenae might be find in other points of the solar system, and therefore we can not attribute a common origin or similar. A possible explanation of catenae my be a meteor shower, which seem to have a common point of origin in heaven because its continu parallel trajectories. Coronellian (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)