Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/90377 Sedna/archive1

SG comments

Lead

In the first sentence, solar system is lower case and unlinked, but in every other occurrence of "solar system" in the lead, it is uppercase.
Should first instance of km be spelled out ?
"Being" is awkward construct, how about ... Spectroscopy has revealed that Sedna's surface composition is largely a mixture of water, methane, and nitrogen ices with tholins – similar to some other trans-Neptunian objects.
Aphelion is not a common word and layreader has to click out to understand meaning of sentence ... please provide an alternate or parenthetical for layreader comprehensibility (similar to how heliopause is defined).
Why is 1.5% of a light year significant for the lead ... ? Use either light year or light days, but not both, as average reader won't know how to get from one to the other and it's just TMI ... ???
Perihelion is used in the lead, unlinked, and not a term known to layreaders.
Unspecific *currently* in the second paragraph ... is this a situation that will last years, decades, centuries ... what is the "currently" about ? Context missing, MOS:CURRENT. Since the next paragraph mentions something about 11,400 years, it seems that this can be solved via some re-organization of the text ... if it's a matter of tens of thousands of years, the *currently* can be better defined.
"It has been considered" ... passive voice ... awkward construction: It has been considered a member of the scattered disc, a group of objects sent into highly elongated orbits by the gravitational influence of Neptune. However, this classification has been contested because its perihelion is too large for it to have been scattered by any of the known planets, leading some astronomers to informally refer to it as the first known member of the inner Oort cloud. --> Classification of Sedna as a member of the scattered disc, a group of objects sent into highly elongated orbits by the gravitational influence of Neptune, is contested; some astronomers informally refer to it as the first known member of the Oort cloud and say its perihelion (define?) is too large for it to have been scattered by any of the known planets.
I have removed some redundant uses of "also"; there is more, and editing from a hotspot/iPad isn't easy.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tried looking for more specific dates on the future of Sedna's orbit but all anyone's interested in is when it will come closer, not when it will be farther away. "It has been consodered..>" is because the IAU page it linked to initially placed sedna in the scattered disc, but it doesn't anymore. I suppose I could link an earlier page with the wayback machine. Serendi ^podous 21:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

SMART undefined acronym
Combining those with precovery observations taken at the Samuel Oschin telescope in August 2003, and from the Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking consortium in 2001–2002, allowed accurate determination of its orbit .... --> ?? --> These observations were combined with observations from the Samuel .. and ... to determine Sedna's orbit.
Images ... images ... vary wording ... Precovery images have later been found in images of the Palomar Digitized Sky Survey dating back to 25 September 1990.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. Serendi ^podous 21:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Edited myself, pls check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly fine, but the Earth symbol is still quite common in astronomy, and there is still a bit of use of planetary symbols in astronomy for the rest of the big 8 (e.g. this paper). So I changed it back to saying that planetary symbols are no longer much used. Double sharp (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit and rotation

Sentence needs to be split: As Sedna nears its perihelion in mid-2076,[7][b] the Sun will appear merely as an extremely bright star-like pinpoint in its sky, 100 times brighter than a full Moon on Earth (for comparison, the Sun appears from Earth to be roughly 400,000 times brighter than the full Moon), and too far away to be visible as a disc to the naked eye.[34]
Edited myself, pls check.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addresed. Serendi ^podous 21:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Physical characteristics

Undefined term (what is a V-band)?
Sedna has a V-band absolute magnitude (H) of about 1.8, and it is estimated to have an albedo of about 0.32, thus giving it a diameter of approximately 1,000 km.[8] At the time of its discovery it was the intrinsically brightest object found in the Solar System since Pluto in 1930.
- Is the "H" used again in the article?
- Why the word "intrinsically"?
Missing as of date on a "currently"
Two uses of currrently in one para-- inelegant.
There is an American English template on the article, but the use of the word colour ... check throughout for ENGVAR needed.
What is SINFONI ??

Addressed. Serendi ^podous 21:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: The named reference Grundy205 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Serendi ^podous 01:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

Edited myself, skipped, didn't understand most of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Population

Sedna's highly elliptical orbit means that the probability of its detection was roughly 1 in 80, which suggests that, unless its discovery was a fluke, another 40–120 Sedna-sized objects would exist within the same region.[16][36]
- This is cited to 2004 and 2008, no idea if dated, and then sentence tense is off ... meant that ??? Suggested that ?? Could exist ??? Do not understand this sentence given its datedness. At the time of its discovery or some such ???
The entire second paragraph is sourced to 2007, and the text is suggestive that it is someone's opinion ... has this been updated, is the opinion more widely held, does the text need attribution?
Acquiring a larger sample of such objects would help in determining which scenario is most likely.[65] New paragraph, define "such objects". Cited to 2009; nothing new here ? The way the rest of the section is written, it appears that subsequent text updates this, but unclear because the flow is off ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to revert anything I messed up; this article is out of my comfort zone, did what I could. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not someone's opinion, it's mathematical modelling. I don't know why you're panicking about aging sources. Maths don't tend to date. Serendi ^podous 21:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Context, attribution, and tense ... all are issues. Maths don't date, but how we phrase statement for context does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. Serendi ^podous 10:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time. Serendi ^podous 21:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More on lead

This wording in the lead is vague and unsupported by the content in the body: before this recent edit, the article was stating in Wikivoice something that the content in the body is more vague about.

Sedna (minor-planet designation 90377 Sedna) is a potential dwarf planet in the outer reaches of the Solar System that is in the innermost part of its orbit ...

The body of the article is much less clear about its classification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I knew it would eventually come down to this. The IAU has not declared Sedna a dwarf planet. At this point, it probably never will. Several astronomers do consider Sedna a dwarf planet. The evidence is in favour of it being a dwarf planet. I do not think describing Sedna and the other un-declared dwarf planets as dwarf planets on Wikipedia is correct until the IAU does. But the overwhelming majority of editors working on the topic disagree with me. I was kicked out of the treehouse years ago and almost quit editing Wikipedia as a result. This is a topic much larger than one FAR, and one I was hoping I would not have to deal with. Serendi ^podous 10:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to hear this, Serendipodous ... I followed the Requested move, thought we were out of the woods when it closed, but was then surprised to see this odd edit to the lead. It seems there is still a dispute here, and the article isn't quite yet stable. However ... this is not fatal to FA status. We worked on the J. K. Rowling FAR to come to consensus on a lead rewrite for months; if you are up to the task, it can be done here, but it would require sustained attention to come to a consensus about how to rewrite the lead to reflect the controversy. If you are up to it, I suggest you read all of the archived discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 ... on the other hand, considering the background you just explained (of which I was unaware), I would understand if you don't feel like taking this on. I'm sorry I wasn't aware there was such a dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, what we have are astronomers who unanimously declare Sedna a dwarf planet (if they talk about dwarf planets at all), and a bunch of popular-facing second-hand sources that are at best under the false impression that the IAU is the final arbiter for dwarf planethood (never mind that there is no IAU process to determine dwarf planethood) and at worst just plain contradicting themselves. Obviously, self-contradiction or making false statements are clear signs that a source is unreliable on that particular matter, and that we should go back to where the information came from (i.e. the astronomers) rather than however it's been mangled by popularisations. On the talk page, myself, Kwamikagami, XOR'easter, and Renerpho have all expressed that we are happy with the current wording. The largest volume of disagreement is currently coming only from Fyunck(click) giving the aforementioned popular-facing sources.

If anybody can find an astronomer disputing the dwarf planethood of Sedna, that would certainly put things to rest. We have one for slightly smaller Salacia and reflect it in that article's lede. But since there don't seem to be any such disagreement among astronomers, I stand by the current unqualified wording. Double sharp (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was the one who noticed the problem, of course I am the one doing the complaining. The sources I gave are legitimate sources that you dont like. The body doesn't support the lead, our article on dwarf planets doesn't support the lead, and many sources including IAU don't support the lead. I have not said that we should refer to it as a non-dwarf planet, I said the lead should be tweaked to show there are differing opinions per sources. That's not a lot to ask out of an encyclopedia but you'd think I asked for the sun to be declassified as a star. Wikipedia should not be making info we should be reporting info, and from a neutral point of view. Why is this so hard? With other subjects these sources are fine and when they conflict, we usually use both in the body, and in the lead we write something that supports the body. That's not happening here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when 4 other editors are happy with the current wording, there clearly isn't a consensus for changing it.

The article writes that To be a dwarf planet, Sedna must be in hydrostatic equilibrium. It is bright enough, and therefore large enough, that this is expected to be the case,[77] and several astronomers have called it one.[e]. That clearly supports the lede saying that it is a dwarf planet, since it is the usage of astronomers that determines whether something is a DP or not. Even in their public-facing material, the IAU clearly stated that just because they happened to call five things dwarfs in resolutions or press releases does not mean that there are not more: Q: How many more new dwarf planets are there likely to be? A: There may be dozens or perhaps even more than a hundred waiting to be discovered. Even that page is self-contradictory on some things (e.g. 2 plutoids but 5 DPs), but it does certainly show that the IAU is not maintaining any kind of list of DPs like some of the sources you gave seem to think.

It's not that I don't like your sources, they just literally contradict themselves and what the IAU actually does (which does not include recognising new dwarf planets, as they have no process to do that). Early on the IAU said that it was going to set up such a process, but it never happened. This is quite normal because for no other term with an IAU definition is there an IAU process to determine which objects fall under that term: it's always determined by what astronomers think. The furthest any such thing ever went was Tancredi's 2010 report to the IAU, which is quite dated and never acted on. More relevantly, it still advises that Sedna, Orcus, and Quaoar be accepted as DPs. If I was going by what I liked, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you, because I myself think that astronomers are being too sure about Sedna and Orcus (Tethys is doubtfully solid, and these TNOs are colder and smaller). But we should be focusing on what the astronomers actually say. Double sharp (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF comments

This is 31 times Neptune's distance from the Sun, or 5.5 light-days, and well beyond the closest portion of the heliopause, which defines the outer boundary of interplanetary space. - This material is in the lead, where it is unsourced, but does not appear in the body unless I'm missing it. If it's significant enough for inclusion in the lead, then it should be in the body as well

Added. Serendi ^podous 02:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the average orbital speed from the infobox be cited/mentioned in the body?
- I don't think it's a significant detail, so my suggestion would be not to bother. Praemonitus (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only a single attempt has been made to find a satellite - is there a newer source than 2004 that can be used to support this? Adding an as-of date in the prose here might be desirable, because an attempt could theoretically be made at any point
- I couldn't find anything published more recently since the search using the HST. It's entirely possible that something may turn up with the JWST, but that hasn't been published yet. Praemonitus (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much not a subject-matter expert, but I'm not seeing anything major sticking out. Hog Farm _Talk 00:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FASA

As the original FAC nominator, Serendipodous doesn't qualify for a Featured article save award, and I haven't followed closely enough to know if anyone else qualified, but the article stats seem to indicate not ... if I have missed the boat, anyone can nominate if the article is kept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]