Wikipedia:Peer review/Jupiter Trojan/archive1

Jupiter Trojan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was wondering what more would be required to bring this article to FA level.

Thanks, Serendi ^pod ous 18:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
I think you should mention in a hidden comment that the article uses British English. added'
Does the 'convention' mentioned in the lead have a name? not that I'm aware of

Section, Observational history:

Italian-born-->Italian (no, he lived in France)
Stably-->Securely, or any other synonyms that flows better rm
Perhaps equilibrium should be replaced with mass/body? (optional replacement) rm line
Where were the Trojans first observed? Hedelberg. added.

Section, Nomenclature:

(also optional) However the idea to name the newly discovered Lagrange satellites of Jupiter... - Lagrange bodies? rm line
Palisa was also the first to calculate the accurate orbits of these asteroids. - accurately calculate swapped

Section, Population:

The number of asteroids with diameter larger than - with a diameter edited
The number asteroids larger than 1 km in the same swarm is about 6. - insert of, after number edited
As far as I'm concerned, collisionally is not a word it is

Could the characteristics section be expanded any further? I know references are little but any expansion would definitely help that section. I might attempt some searching. that would certainly help. I'm out of Google scholar refs.

Section, Formation and evolution:
could you link planetary migration, if that's possible? done.

I would say that's a pretty lengthy list, but I'm happy about the outcome of your collaboration. ;) Ceran^→//forge 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJHall: I tried to make some more revisionss, but some of my changes have vanished for unknown reasons. I'll just put my concerns below.

Overall it has some good content, but I think some parts need copy editing and more direct writing. For example, "The difference could be indicative of a" seems more passive than "The difference could indicate a".

Fixed. Serendi ^pod ous 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of terms that may be common in scientific circles, but I think should be wikilinked for lay readers. For example: "order of magnitude", "arc-minutes", "Maxwellian function" and "Spectroscopically".

Fixed. Serendi ^pod ous 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quibble about this wording: "lies in one or other of the two Lagrangian points of stability". To me a point is dimensionless, so the asteroids can not be inside. (For example, Murray and Dermott (1999) Solar System Dynamics, p. 107, says that they "move in tadpole orbits about the triangular equilibrium points in the Sun-Jupiter system".) There's a similar issue later in the text ("Those in the L4 point are named after Greek...")
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Their name comes from the convention that names the objects..." is wordy and a little awkward. How about "By convention, they are named..."?

Fixed, I think. Serendi ^pod ous 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...orbiting the Sun 60° ahead or 60° behind a planet will be trapped near these points,..." seems too loose in its wording. It should clearly state that they need to be in the same orbit as the planet.
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is "(12126) 1999 RM11" the same object that Barnard observed? It is unclear.

Clarified Serendi ^pod ous 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This number increased to only 14 in 1961" switches tense from the prior sentence.
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the paragraph that begins, "As of 2009..." seems out of order and needs a little work. Based on the second sentence, the first lists the known asteroids rather than the total. However, this is not explicitly stated. What does the fact that there are unknown asteroids have to do with the count of numbered asteroids?
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If the L5 swarm contains..." contains two uses of "comparable". I'd change one to "similar" as that stands out.
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...this disparity is probably due to observational bias." Could the reason for observational bias be explained here? I'm unclear why it would occur in this instance.

Fixed. Serendi ^pod ous 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact, orbits with low inclination are less stable than strongly inclined orbits." I think this needs clarification. Please explain what "less stable" means in this situation and why larger inclination is more stable. I'll guess it has to do with perturbations by Saturn or Mars, but that's speculation.
I removed this sentence, because it is wrong. It is only true for Neptunian Trojans. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The amplitude of the libration varies from 0.63 to 88° with average around 33°." I'm unclear about what this is saying. Is it a radial arc along the Jovial orbit? Is the average that of the absolute magnitude from the lagrange point? Please clarify.
Clarified. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the first Characteristics paragraph, why switch between percent and value?
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"consistent with the below Kuiper Belt object theory of Trojan formation." This seems somewhat meaningless until the Formation section has been read.
I rephrased this sentence. Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and good luck.—RJH (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing this but there should be an explanation to why L1-3 are not occupied, or if they are, compare them a bit with L4-5. Nergaal (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using an actual image of the largest member. These ones seem ok [1] [2] if no other is found. Nergaal (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hektor is the largest, not Patroclus. Serendi ^pod ous 12:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Natural Cut: I actually stopped copyediting because I'm not familiar with some scientific terms and was afraid I might be wrong when I linked the word binaries to binary star. But I also had a question pertaining to the use of Jovian Trojan versus Jupiter Trojan. Should the instances of the former be replaced with the latter per the article title? Again, science isn't my forte, so I didn't want to mess with it. Jovian Trojan actually sounds better to my ear, not that that means anything. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "binary" to "binary asteroid". As for whether the article should be called Jovian Trojan or Jupiter Trojan, that's a good question. I agree that it does sound better, but I don't know whether enough people are aware that "Jovian" is the adjectival form of "Jupiter" to justify changing it. In any case, I agree; it should be either one or the other. Serendi ^pod ous 11:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, if I hadn't been distracted at work and had read further down the article, I'd have seen it did refer to binary asteroid. Another suggestion is in the first paragraph of the nomenclature section: The first sentence should perhaps state Palisa as the originator of the naming tradition, unless he and Wolf came to separate conclusions or some other relation. It currently says that Wolf named the first one and then says "however" when it mentions Palisa's suggestion without making the connection clear.

Actually, according to the source, Wolf didn't name Achilles, so I removed that line. Serendi ^pod ous 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers and mass section, second paragraph - "nothing is known about smaller Trojans" - just "little is known" or "nothing is known about their mass" or something along those lines. We clearly know they exist and are small. ;-)

OK. Edited. :-) Serendi ^pod ous 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under Formation and evolution, it kind of irks me to read "10⁴" for a measure of years, maybe just a layman's perspective showing through though. I am also personally curious after reading the section, if one theory is more widely accepted. It hints at problems with the first theory but goes on to explain the second theory and leaves me at the point where (if I read this elsewhere) I normally go look things up on Wikipedia!

Hm. I need to ask Ruslik about that. Serendi ^pod ous 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it was a genuinely interesting read for me and I wish you luck. Natural Cut (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]