Talk:Moons of Haumea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Moons of Haumea 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.
February 13, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Moons of Haumea is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-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.
WikiProject Solar System (Rated GA-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have the following comments regarding the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Is there a way to put bolding in the first line, perhaps by rewording the first sentence?
Amended. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You use "appear" repeatedly in the first few lines. Is there a way to have more variation in wording?
Amended. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • who named the moons, as the names are different from the one the Caltech team gave them.
Amended. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Namaka, the smaller, inner satellite of Haumea, was discovered on June 30, 2005, and nicknamed "Blitzen". In the myth of the Hawaiian goddess Haumea, "Her many children sprang from different parts of her body." Thus the Haumean moons are named after Haumea's children. -- these two sentences seem like non sequiters.
Amended. (Ok, whole paragraph rewritten)... Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The article is a little confusing on the subject of actually viewing the moons. Perhaps this paragraph could be clarified:
  • At present, the orbits of the Haumean moons appear almost exactly edge-on from Earth, with the moons potentially occulting Haumea.[8] Observation of such transits would provide precise information on the size and shape of Haumea and its moons, as happened in the late 1980s with Pluto and Charon.[9] The tiny change in brightness of the system during these occultations will require at least a medium-aperture professional telescope for detection.[10] Hiʻiaka last occulted Haumea in 1999, a few years before discovery, and will not do so again for some 130 years.[11] However, in a situation unique among regular satellites, Namaka's orbit is being greatly torqued by Hiʻiaka, preserving the viewing angle of Namaka–Haumea transits for several more years.
Extra sentence added before paragraph to clarify. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Over the timescale of the system, it should have been tidally damped into a more circular orbit. - such sentences appear to be jargon and don't explain anything to the general reader.
Amended with hopefully helpful expansion of ideas. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears that it has been disturbed by orbital resonances with the more massive Hiʻiaka, due to converging orbits as they move outward from Haumea due to tidal dissipation. The moons may have been caught in and then escaped from orbital resonance several times; they currently are in or at least close to an 8:3 resonance. This strongly perturbs Namaka's orbit, with a current precession of ~20°. -- this is another example of jargon plus poor wording ("Tt appears that it has been disturbed by..")
Changed a little; no doubt the other editors will find further improvements. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If it turns out to have a similar albedo to the dwarf planet itsef, Namaka would be about 170 km in diameter. -- why is this?
Amended. (Could probably use that Spitzer reference from Haumea though). Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The article is immensely improved. Very nice.
  • "The unusual spectrum, along with similar absorption lines on Haumea, led Brown and colleagues to conclude that capture was an unlikely model for the system's formation,..." - what does "capture" mean in this context?
Sentence reworded for clarity. Iridia (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Observation of such transits..." - are transits the same as osculations?
    pretty much yes Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, even though I don't exactly quite understand everything, you guys have done a standout job of being accommodatating and explaining. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV
  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:

Good job. Congratulations!

Mattisse (Talk) 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Haumea-Hi'iaka eclipse data from 2009[edit]

Found Namaka 6 hrs later than it is supposed to be. But it is transiting across the face of Haumea. Also found Namaka a 2nd night. Also 6 hrs late. -- (2010 Aug 19 Mike Brown and Emily Schaller at Nordic Optical Telescope in the Canary Islands)

File:2003 EL61.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:2003 EL61.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Small categorization problem[edit]

The category hierarchy is:

  1. Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2004
    1. Category:Haumea (dwarf planet) (1 C, 5 P)
      1. Category:Moons of Haumea (3 P)
        1. Moons of Haumea

The problem is that Moons of Haumea were discovered in 2005, not 2004. What's the standard procedure for fixing something like this, if it's worth fixing? I'll post this at WP:ASTRO in a few days, if no response here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)