Talk:Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990

Requested move 16 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990 → Earth-grazing meteoroid of 1990 – Or 1990 Earth-grazing meteoroid. There are no other recorded meteoroids in 1990 unless I'm mistaken. Current title is too precise for my liking. If the proposed title is not precise enough, how about Earth-grazing meteoroid of October 1990 or October 1990 Earth-grazing meteoroid? --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment you are most certainly mistaken. There are many many such meteoroids each year. They form the portion of annual meteor showers each year which do not burn up in the atmosphere. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But they must be proven notable; otherwise, this is the only notable meteoroid of the year. George Ho (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The annual meteor showers are all over the news every year, and featured in astronomy magazines months in advance, so you can show up and watch the shows. And we have articles on all the prominent meteor showers -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you by any chance one of registered users? If so, watch out, so you don't risk your comments being struck out. Also, the coverage must be significant enough, and a topic must be independent from the topic itself. --George Ho (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The annual meteor showers easily meet the notability criterion, with multiple independent sources, EACH year. (like the SuperBowl) Just because we don't have separate articles for each year's showers does not mean they are not notable. No, why do you think I'm one of the registered users? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Earth grazers are common (even if witnessing or recording the event is rare). To remove the date is too suggest otherwise. -- Kheider (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Although I would also prefer if the IP user logged in, I have to say that I understand his/her point, see below. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Originally I was quite hesitant, but the arguments above convinced me it would be better to keep the current name. Notable meteoroid showers also contain Earth-grazing meteoroids (although they might not be notable individually).
  Besides that the proposed new name is not something like The notable Earth-grazing meteoroid of 1990, but simply Earth-grazing meteoroid of 1990, which for some readers could be misleading, since it might seem to them that there were no other Earth-grazing meteoroids on that year (notable or not). Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quality classification

I'd say that this article is close to B class, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings#Quality scale:

1. References: Not sure. Three references is not much, but I don't know how many are out there. However, the inline referencing is pretty good. Maybe a few more references for the "Observation" section could be dug up.
2. Coverage. ✓ Pass. Most definitely.
3. Defined structure. ✓ Pass.
4. Reasonably well-written. ✓ Pass. At least since I've copyedited it.
5. Supporting materials. Not sure. There are several tables that support understanding. Maybe an image with the two different orbits (akin to the image of the orbit of the Chelyabinsk meteor) could be created, though I doubt this has any bearing on this point. Also, is it possible to have a more elaborate infobox?
6. Understandability. ✓ Pass. I think there are no major problems here, although there is some room for improvement.

In all, this article is close to B class, and so is currently definitely a C class. --JorisvS (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!

As for the references, all other sources I found so far were just citing the 1992 paper by Borovička and Ceplecha, so I think it is better to cite directly the original paper. I will try to find something in the Czechoslovak astronomy magazines of 1990.

As for the supporting materials, I added some more info into the infobox, but I am afraid I am not able to produce a picture similar to the one in Chelyabinsk meteor article :-( Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what they're saying. If there is no added value content-wise, then indeed no, but else there could be added value. As for an image, we could ask at WP:Astronomy. --JorisvS (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Czechoslovak astronomy magazines did not take notice of the event. However, I found a newer paper by Spurný, which has more precise data, and updated the article, adding the paper as a reference. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The article now definitely feels better than C class, although I'm still unsure if five references is really sufficient. I've reclassified it to B-class anyway. It could now actually be worthwhile to nominate it for GA and see what feedback it gets. --JorisvS (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for assessing the article as well as for the copyediting and other help. I think I will try the GA nomination and see what the feedback will be. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Diagram of its orbit

There are several versions of a diagram of its orbit posted at WT:ASTRONOMY#Diagram request: The first version, an improved version though with the side view slightly oblique, and a suggestion for an oblique view instead of a side view as perpendicular to one of the meteoroid's orbital planes. Comments and suggestions, especially at the thread there, are appreciated, so that it can be finalized and added to this article. --JorisvS (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 20:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The "Physical charateristics" section seems small. Please expand it.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Gug01:: Thanks very much for the review. I understand the call for expanding the Physical characteristics section, but I am afraid it is not possible. There is practically no other evidence of the passing body than a not very strong light track on two photographs, and so nothing more than it is written in the article is known. I really tried hard going through all the sources before your review and after it again, but there is really nothing more, unfortunately. So I added at least a few words explaining which values was the mass estimated from. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gug01: I really think that the article fulfills the 3a criterium, because it gives all important information known about the topic. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. That means that the article is now ready, so I'll pass the review.

@Gug01: Thanks very much :-)--Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Size

At 44 kg, how big would it have been? --JorisvS (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ordinary chondrites have, very roughly, a density of 3 kg/dm³ (2.4–4 kg/dm³; [1]), which means it had a volume of some 15 L (11–18 L), which, for a spherical object, would mean a radius of 15 cm (14–16 cm). --JorisvS (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Červená hora image

@Jan.Kamenicek: What's the role of the shutter? It says that it divided the image '12.5 times per second', but that can only mean that multiple images were made (because you can't have only a single image divided 12.5 times per second), AFAICS. This is also the only way I can think of one could determine the meteoroid's speed. --JorisvS (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It was one photograph made on one photographic plate. The exposure time was for several hours. The shutter was interrupting the exposure and thus divided track of the meteoroid on this photograph so that it did not look like this ____________, but rather like this --------------. Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

All right. And it produced the image in the infobox? But there it looks like ____________ ... --JorisvS (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I reworded it, is it better?

As for the image in the infobox, if you enlarge it, it is clearly interrupted like ---------. Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Right, I looked at the wrong object :P. The track of the Moon is rather dominant and eye-catching. I think we should add an arrow (possibly colored) or something to point readers to what the meteoroid actually is, instead of only relying on the caption, especially given how visually dominant the Moon is in it. --JorisvS (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right. I will do it soon. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I think the arrow is best a few times larger to be properly eye-catching. --JorisvS (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bold text

Quoting from WP:BOLDTITLE, "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it", which was rather the case with the previous version (which repeated 'meteoroid' twice within a few words). An article's lead does not have to have some words in bold; it can, if it makes it clearer without sacrificing proper style. (For the record, in my previous edit, Earth-grazing fireball was linked by Earth-grazing via redirect. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507075446/http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu:80/MagScale.html to http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/618QHms8h?url=http://www.fai.org/astronautics/100km.asp to http://www.fai.org/icare-records/100km-altitude-boundary-for-astronautics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)