Talk:Controversy over the discovery of Haumea/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article does not meet the criteria for GA at this time, especially problematic in terms of criteria 2 and 4. Please feel free to renominate the article at a later time after the noted concerns have been addressed. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and formatting

"IAU officially recognized the Californian's team proposal in September 2008." - rather ambiguous statement. I think you're referring to the proposed name, correct? Should say so explicitly. Also, grammar - "Californian's team" -> "Californian team's"
Haumea didn't "fit the bill" because it was small, but most people won't understand why size is so important
"Haumea was the first object currently[update] classified as a dwarf planet to have been discovered since Pluto in 1930" - since it is currently classified as a dwarf planet, could remove that from the middle, and add a phrase at the end of this sentence to explain its initial classification if necessary (i.e. "...though it was initially classified as...")
Perhaps mention why the California team was in Hawaii?
If his name is José Luis Ortiz Moreno, why is he referred to as Ortiz and not Moreno?
This article could use a general copyedit for spelling, grammar and clarity
Could use a few more wikilinks, but some are duplicated
"The announcement was made earlier than planned to forestall the possibility of a similar controversy with that discovery" - at that point, there was no controversy yet - should reword
"Scooped" is a slang term and should be explained or eliminated
The name of the Iberian goddess is spelled differently in the text and the photo caption - which is correct?
There are some minor issues with encyclopedic tone
"(136108) 2003 EL61 " - should explain where this comes from
The article is tagged as containing potentially dated statements

Accuracy and verifiability

In the lead you say that the Ortiz team accused the Americans of political interference, while the naming section says that they accused the IAU of political bias. Which is correct?
Given that this is a possibly controversial topic, citations should be much denser
Citations needed for:

"Santa", as they nicknamed it at the time
Instead he kept it under wraps, along with several other large trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs), until through additional observation he could better determine their natures
When his team discovered Haumea's moons, they realized that Haumea was more rocky than other TNOs, and that its moons were mostly ice. They then discovered a small family of nearby icy TNOs, and concluded that these were remnants of Haumea's icy mantle, which had been blasted off by a collision
He says that he found Haumea in late July on images taken on March 7, 9, and 10, 2003
the team came across Brown's internet summary
without making any mention of the Caltech logs
The next morning they again accessed the Caltech logs, including observations from several additional nights
Stoss found precovery images of Haumea in digitized Palomar Observatory slides from 1955
The same day as the MPC publication, Brown's group announced the discovery of another Kuiper belt object, Eris
Brown, though disappointed at being scooped, congratulated Ortiz on their discovery. He apologized for immediately overshadowing their announcement of Haumea with his announcement of Eris, and explained that someone had accessed their data and he was afraid of being scooped again. Ortiz did not volunteer that it had been him. Upon learning from web server records that it was a computer at the Sierra Nevada Observatory that had accessed his observation logs the day before the discovery announcement—logs which included enough information to allow the Ortiz team to precover Haumea in their 2003 images—Brown came to suspect fraud
He emailed Ortiz and asked for an explanation
IAU protocol
The dispute over who had actually discovered the object delayed the acceptance of any name, or of formal classification of the object as a dwarf planet
The Ortiz team has objected, suggesting that if Ataecina were not accepted the IAU could at least have chosen a third name favoring neither party, and accusing the IAU of political bias

Personal blogs are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinion of their authors. News blogs are allowed under certain circumstances, but efforts should be made to find better sources
Some of the details in the article don't match up with some of the details in the sources. For example, the article claims that the complaint was made August 9, while this source says August 14. These contradictions negatively impact the accuracy of the article. If the sources are wrong, more reliable sources should be found. If the article is wrong, it should be changed.
Refs 5 and 12 are the same
Need consistency in formatting of references
Ref 11 is broken
Ref 19 doesn't support the sentence it's citing

Broad

The section in Haumea has some additional information that would be useful to help explain events here - should be included
What was the end result of Brown's request to the MPC for Ortiz to be stripped of discovery rights?

Neutrality

3 external links for Caltech + 1 for Ortiz = lack of balance
Per WP:WTA, certain words add an editorial bias to an article and should be avoided
"it is rumored that Dagda, the name of god from Irish mythology, a "neutral" name was indeed proposed but not used in the end" - first, "rumored" is a poor choice of words without a definitive source. Second, who made this proposal?
You devote quite a bit of space to explaining why Haumea is an appropriate name while not explaining the reasoning behind Ataecina
In general, the article seems a bit stilted towards the Caltech team

I agree, but that may be due to language barriers. Most of the pro-Ortiz material is likely to be in Spanish. Serendi ^pod ous 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what specific way is the link deficient in necessary and relevant information. Or should we simply add links for the sake of having them. Should we add references just for references sake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1905:210B:0:0:0:464 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

No issues noted; the article has a history of edit wars but these seem to have been resolved. The page has been relatively uncontroversial for the past several months

Images

There's a picture of Brown but not of Ortiz, which shifts the balance of the article somewhat. If no photo of Ortiz is available, consider a photo of the Spanish observatory that he worked in, or something of the sort
It might be helpful to include a picture of Haumea itself