Wikipedia:Peer review/Asteroid belt/archive1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:24, 25 April 2007

Latest revision as of 08:01, 17 October 2021

(41 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)

Line 1:

===[[Asteroid belt]]===

[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Asteroid belt/archive2|previous Peer review]]

I'd appreciate any feedback you might have on how to further improve this page. The one area I'm having difficulty is in finding a good scientific source for why the concept of a destroyed planet (forming the belt) is now disfavored. Thank you. — [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article seems pretty close to FA level; I was wondering what else needed to be done. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey RJH, I'm no expert in astronomy related topics, in fact I don't think I'd even make it as a novice, so take these suggestions with a grain of salt.

* ''The asteroid belt is a region of the solar system falling roughly between the planets Mars and Jupiter where the greatest concentration of asteroid orbits can be found.'' How about ''the region'' instead of ''a region''? Also, ''located'' instead of ''falling''?

*Please see [[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer|automated]] peer review suggestions [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/October 2007#Asteroid belt|here]]. Thanks, [[User:AZPR|APR]]&nbsp;_{[[User talk:AndyZ|t]]} 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

** Done.

* The next sentence introduces the term minor planets and uses it in place of asteroid orbits. It's a bit odd that we have separate articles on these terms when both articles state the terms are interchangeable. This may not be a problem (I didn't completely read both articles), and is probably outside of the scope of this article, but is it possible to at least clarify this a little between these two sentences to avoid confusing readers?

** GoodI point. Ihad added mergea tagscouple toof thesuggestions asteroidfor andtopics minorhere: planet articles since they[[Talk:Asteroid_belt#New_topics]]. areThanks. highly redundant.&mdash; [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::Sections added. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

* The 98.5% statistic makes the ''greatest concentration'' claim in the first sentence a bit redundant doesn't it? Is it worth just merging the two sentences?

** Done.&mdash;[[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']])

*There should be some discussion on the relative share of mass in the asteroid belt as opposed to that in the other major groupings of small solar system bodies. "98.5% of the known minor planets" is accurate as far as it goes, but it obviously doesn't reflect the reality of observational bias. I know [[John S. Lewis]] in ''Mining the Sky'' pg. 199 suggests that there is three times the belt mass in the Jupiter Trojans alone. And I'm sure that's not the only estimate out there.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

* ''most of the surviving material was swept out of the region.'' This wasn't clear at all until I read that only about 0.1% of the original belt remains. Can this be cleared up somehow?

:I haven't found any direct scholarly references to the combined mass of the Trojans but I find it difficult to believe that the combined mass of the Trojans is higher than the asteroid belt; there have only been about 700 Trojans discovered so far, and none is anywhere near as big as Ceres. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 08:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

** I tried to, but I'm not 100% certain I understand the difficulty.&mdash;[[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']])

::EDIT: OK.

* The size of the smallest bodies is described in the third paragraph, so is it worth doing the same for the larger bodies so we get a better indication of the range of sizes?

[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJ/journal/issues/v120n2/200007/200007.html This article]

** Done.&mdash;[[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']])

says that the combined mass of the L4 Trojans is 0.01 percent the mass of the Earth. Assuming a similar mass for the L5s, that gives a combined mass for the Trojans of 0.02 percent an Earth mass. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2002Icar..158...98K&amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4326fb2cf906949 This article] says that the mass of the asteroid belt is 0.05 percent the mass of the Earth, which makes the mass of the Trojans about half that of the belt. However, according to [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/papers/2006/DJ06.pdf this article], the asteroid belt is at most a twentieth the mass of the Kuiper belt, and one six hundredth the [http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512256v1 mass of the Oort cloud] <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 09:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

* No indication is given of why Bode thought another planet may orbit in the gap between Mars and Jupiter - is this known? Was Ceres' discovery by direct observation?

:The underlying hypothesis was that the Jupiter Trojans would be very-hard-to-detect ultradark super-[[carbonaceous chondrite]]s, following the trend in composition observed in the outer regions of the belt. Quite possibly that idea is considered obsolete now with the recent Kuiper belt discoveries; it's hard to track up on as the book was published a decade ago and Lewis doesn't name the sources of this "recent estimate" (it's a popular science book). Anyway, it's good to see you've tracked down those numbers you have, but I wonder how accurate any of them can turn out to be be. Now it's being reported that [[Neptune Trojan]]s [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070130_st_neptune_trojans.html may exceed the belt in mass].--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 05:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

** I started that section with a couple of paragraph-long discussion of the Titus-Bode law. Then I ended up removing it in order to keep the article focused. I think a reader could investigate this on the Johann Bode article if they were curious. Is that reasonable? &mdash;[[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']])

::Not mass. Number. Big difference. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

* ''A total of 1,000 asteroids had been found by 1923, 10,000 by 1951, and 100,000 by 1982.'' I think this should probably be referenced.

:::Ah, yes. You'll excuse me that error—rest assured the "recent estimate" in Lewis was indeed about mass, though. By the way, I've discovered the actual Neptune Trojans paper and it's [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006DPS....38.4403S here].--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

* ''About 220 of the asteroids in the belt are larger than 100 km.'' Maybe another reference needed here? Any chance of this being a little more precise than ''about''?

* ''(where 1 A.U., or astronomical unit, equals the average distance between the Earth and the Sun)'' Isn't it a bit late to be introducing this, considering the unit is used well before this paragraph?

:::I realize that all of these numbers are pretty speculative, yet still I think we need some sort of caveat to counter "98.5% of the known minor planets", which though accurate is misleading to readers who are not already familiar with this field, who are unaware that the asteroid belt almost certainly accounts for only a minority of the total number of minor planets (which of course includes the Kuiper belt, the Oort cloud, and the various Trojans).--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

* ''This "core" region contains approximately 93.4% of all numbered minor planets.'' It might be worth clarifying if you're talking about all numbered minor planets in the belt or the solar system here.

::::OK. I've added a section to the end of the article. It's a bit cumbersome, so let me know what you think. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

* ''The absolute magnitudes of most asteroids are 11–19, with a peak at about 16.'' The problem is probably my (lack of?)understanding here, but it seems weird that a peak would be between a given range? Just checking.

:::::It's certainly a good thing that you've researched this. I'm a bit divided in my mind as to whether perhaps it should be more summarized here and the the rest moved to [[minor planet]]. It's your discretion, really.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 23:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

* ''They are redder in hue'' I don't have any suggestions off the top of my head, just the word redder seems a bit odd.

::::::OK. I've shortened it. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 07:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

* ''the mean orbital period of an asteroid forms an integer fraction with the orbital period of Jupiter.'' For some reason this just doesn't seem to read very well. Maybe something like ''the mean orbital period of an asteroid together with the orbital period of Jupiter forms an integer fraction ..'' and then work the mean-motion resonance into the rest of the sentence instead of leaving it until the next sentence? It just wasn't very clear until I read the next paragraph.

:::::::Would it not make sense to just merge that section into the brief section on mass? That will provide a means of direct comparison, and not leave an off-topic section dangling at the end of the article. &mdash; [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

* ''The main ones'' Maybe ''The main Kirkwood gaps''?

::::::::How's that? <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 18:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

* ''After five billion years, the current asteroid belt population bears little resemblance to the original one.'' Wording is a little odd again. ''will bear'' will probably suffice, but I don't think a little more work on this sentence would hurt.

:::::::::I think it's the best treatment of this info yet. We'll see what RJH thinks.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)\

* ''Approximately a third'' -> ''Approximately one third'' ?

::::::::::I guess I can live with it, although I'm unhappy that a section about the belt's mass has been changed to a section primarily about what's not in the belt. The information seems mostly irrelevant now. &mdash; [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

* The '''In media''' section is a bit lame. Half of the section is material that was only just discussed in the previous section. Any chance of this being expanded to include specific examples, maybe even some misconceptions or something?

:::::::::::If we could find, say, three sentences worth of information about the mass of the asteroid belt as a whole, we could split the section into two paragraphs. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

** Nope, sorry. This section was very deliberately whitted down to a bare minimum so that the article could focused on the scientific aspects of the belt. The main article link for that section contains a slew of examples and a discussion. The current article is past 32Kb. &mdash; [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']])

::::::::::::The second sentence of what you had in there before seemed pretty relevant. It gave the reader an idea of the mass distribution. Mention of the center of mass of the belt might also be interesting, if there is a value somewhere. &mdash; [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully some of this helps, and thanks again for another interesting read. Cheers, [[User:Darkliight|darkliight]]^{[[User_talk:Darkliight|[&pi;alk]]]} 12:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::OK, I've reinstated it. I still think a few added sentences might be good.<b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

*It is strange that the article fails to mention that several of the [[:Category:Asteroids visited by spacecraft]] were in the belt. Just because these missions were not "dedicated specifically to the study of asteroids", does not mean they're not of scientific importance.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 18:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:done. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

*It's a pretty minor semantic issue, but should this article mention at some point that the asteroid belt is traditionally considered the "boundary" between the Inner and Outer Solar System; also I notice the [[Solar System]] article now places the belt in the Inner Solar System, abutting the Mid Solar System—perhaps this is a realignment due to increased Trans-Neptunian emphasis, I don't know.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

::As the person who wrote the Solar System article, I can say that yes, that was the point. The issue revolved around whether to have every section be a "two =" section, or whether to have a "heirarchical" distribution. The article's FA ultimately depended on me finding a way to make the distribution "heirarchical," and the only way I could do it was to invent a non-existent term for the middle region of the Solar System. But yes, it is true. Nowadays the term "outer solar system" is usually applied to the trans-Neptunian region. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]]<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>[[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 15:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)