Talk:3 Juno/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

1. Is a reference available for the first paragraph of the "Characteristics" section? In particular the "newest estimates" needs a reference. In addition, "newest estimates" is not a good phrase to use because it is vague will become dated. Stating who made the estimate and/or when it was made avoids this problem.
2. "the honour of being the largest" isn't particularly encyclopedic prose. Can this be rephrased?
3. Is a wikilink for "eccentricity" available?
4. Is a reference available for the paragraph beginning with "Juno orbits at a slightly closer..."?
5. I think the "Observations" section would work better as prose than as a bullet list.
6. Can the Yeomans site be moved to the "External links" section? I'm not sure what it is doing at the top of the "References" list.
7. Similar articles have sections like "Surface features" and "Geology". Is any of this information available for this article?

I will place this on hold for a week to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If progress is being made, an extension will be granted if necessary. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy edited.

1. Yes, we need a ref for the 1% figure. My bad; I added that and don't recall the source. Shouldn't be too hard to track down. Wording probs fixed.
2. fixed
3. fixed
4. Such factoids are derived from the info box. As long as the info box is properly sourced, we don't need to separately source the figures in the text. Orbits are very well established, so a comparison with the orbits of the other asteroids should suffice.
5. Indeed. fixed
6. fixed
7. The last paragraph of 'characteristics'. I have my doubts that it's worth splitting off a separate section for only three lines.

kwami (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in adding the references to the prose using <ref name=...>. I think it would help the article, but it's good to know that references can be found in the article. As for my question about the surface features and geology, I agree that the information should be left in the "Characteristics" section" if that is all that's available. Thanks for your quick response. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed the lack of ref for the belt mass budget between Ceres through Vesta. Also straightened author names and numerous misspellings of et al.. That should do it. Urhixidur (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Added a fair-use image. This is a press release from a scientific institute, partially run by the US govt, not a for-profit publication. kwami (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A reference for Eunomia and Juno as the two biggest S-type asteroids would help. Does this work? I found it in this article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. I'm going to change it from 'most massive' to largest, and also not try to say which is bigger, since I'm sure they're within 1 sig measurement error. kwami (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. kwami (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm going to close this review as a Keep. Thanks to everyone who helped. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)