Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ceres (dwarf planet)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2022 [1].

Ceres (dwarf planet)[edit]

Nominator(s): Serendipodous 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article nearly won its previous FAC, but ran aground on the writing and style. Since then I and a fresh pair of eyes have given it a copyedit, and I think it's ready for another FAC. Serendipodous 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to Coords: former featured article; if re-promoted, please adjust the placement and tally at WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Great article on the dwarf planet. That's being said, the article's images and image placement may need some work, one-line paragraphs should be merged, and there's some stuff that can be written more about (Why Ceres don't have a moon? Is Ceres seismically active? Does Ceres has a magnetic field? etc.) so I don't think the article should be promoted yet, but overall, good work on a Level 4 Vital article. You should be proud of your efforts and accomplishment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's possible to answer why it doesn't have a moon; that's like asking why I don't have a sports car. Serendipodous 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur on that point. Regarding the magnetic field, as far as I know, it's not thought to have one [2], and the bow-shock event detected by the Dawn spacecraft is thought to be due to the solar wind impinging upon the transient exosphere [3][4]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Take "Why Ceres don't have a moon?" as an example – why does Salacia and Orcus have a moon even though the parent body is less massive than Ceres? It may be because of their distance from the Sun, or their origin. I doubt that there haven't been any research done about the topic yet that would warrant inclusion into the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It still sounds strange, because we can also ask "why Orcus don't have two moons?" or smth similar. I tried to find any paper that talks about hypothetical moon of Ceres, but didn't find anything significant except for thia paper Dawn mission's search for satellites of Ceres: Intact protoplanets don't have satellites. I think it can be included, though I'm not an expert on Ceres: Examination of the physical properties of the 41 largest and most massive main belt asteroids suggests that large asteroids without satellites are intact and their interiors have internal strength. This is consistent with results from the Dawn mission at both Vesta and Ceres. Ceres' volatile-rich composition also is a likely contributor to both the absence of satellites at Ceres and of Ceres meteorites at Earth. These results suggest that collisional disruption creating rubble pile structure is a necessary condition for formation of satellites around main belt asteroids. Artem.G (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          My bias is that one should explain why a body has a moon, rather than why it doesn't. Of course, if people have done studies, then we can write about them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure that seismic activity has been studied apart from the cryovulcanism that the article already discusses, but I did a little work on the other topics mentioned. My standards for image selection and placement are very low, so somebody else ought to evaluate that. XOR'easter (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed a line that was unreliably sourced; it's been restored with a {{citation needed}}, but I can't find any reliable source that could substantiate it or indicate that it's a sufficiently important datum to include. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The {{citation needed}} was filled in with a personal website, which I am highly doubtful of, and since the point is a really, really marginal one, I snipped it out again. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Artem[edit]

Article is good, sources seems to be ok, will try to read thoroughly and comment later. At a first glance, 'Proposed exploration' seems odd, as it describes missions proposals for Vesta or just some asteroids, but not specifically a Ceres mission. More comments later. Artem.G (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some source checks:
Ref 7 should be moved to notes; ref 14 - do you think it's reliable source? Looks self-published. Artem.G (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 17 can be cited properly, with authors (and maybe it can be swapped with some real paper, not with a conference summary?)
Refs 30 and 31 should be formatted, can they be found online? Ref 35 needs ISBN. Ref 100 - can it be found online?
Fixed. (except for some reason the format isn't recognising "et al.") Serendipodous 11:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has the numbering of these references changed? I think I'm pretty close to supporting. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One of the references was moved to notes. Serendipodous 22:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking rather nice, now. XOR'easter (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from XOR'easter[edit]

I am very close to supporting this for promotion. I'm not convinced that all the images are necessary; the portrait of Piazzi falls awkwardly before the end of the infobox, squeezing the text between them, and it doesn't add much. The first map in the row of three is both incomplete and drab. Other than image issues, I think it's a go. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Serendipodous 17:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild just a note about what is going on in astronomy articles. Unfortunately, some months back, different editors nominated five astronomy articles at once at FAR, which has placed an enormous burden on the few editors who work in this area. I'm wondering if you might consider giving this one a little extra time, depending on what those editors say ? They are quite taxed, and it's demoralizing and demotivating ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then they need to come here for some R&R positivity. Happy to give it, or any other article, a little extra time - so long as there are clear indications that this will result in some further reviewing attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serendipodous and Gog the Mild ... as the other side of the same same coin, 90377 Sedna was originally a FAC nomination of Serendipodous. Serendipodous, if you were to help out at Wikipedia:Featured article review/90377 Sedna/archive1, the few reviewers at FAR who are stretched so thin might have more time to devote to this FAC nomination. It doesn't seem quite right for the very few editors we have working in astronomy to be struggling to clean up five, now reduced to three FARs at once, while a new nomination appears at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:: They could close the Sedna FAR, which was pointless to start with. Serendipodous 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "numerical procession" A link for this term would be helpful.
  • "Ceres's lack of an asteroid family is believed to be due to the large proportion of ice in its composition, which, if fragmented, would have sublimated to nothing over the age of the Solar System" Do you mean that Ceres is thought to be a member of a family the other members of which have sublimated away? If so - or if not - you should clarify.
  • How about "Ceres is not part of an asteroid family, probably due to its large proportion of ice, as smaller bodies with the same composition would have sublimated to nothing over the age of the Solar System."
OK. Moved to the topic sentence. Serendipodous 15:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "meaning that seasonal effects have occurred in the past, with the last period of seasonal activity estimated at 14,000 years ago". What seasonal activity?
  • "Ceres comprises nearly a third of the estimated (3.0±0.2)×1021 kg mass of the asteroid belt". You say above 25%.
  • "It is approximately the size of the large trans-Neptunian object Orcus (though 1.5 times as massive)" Why is this worth mentioning?
  • "pit crater chains" This term should be linked or explained.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Serendipodous 14:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March 2016, Dawn found definitive evidence of water molecules on the surface of Ceres at Oxo crater". I do not understand what you are saying here. Presumably it is not ice as this is a major constituent of the surface, so evidence of it would not be significant. If you mean temporary liquid water then you should say so.
  • " Ceres is thought to consist of an inner muddy mantle of hydrated rock, such as clays, an intermediate layer comprising a muddy mixture of brine and rock down to a depth of at least 100 km (60 mi), and an outer, 40 km (25 mi) thick crust of ice, salts and hydrated minerals." This is unclear. Mantle links to an article which defines it as the layer between the core and the crust, and my dictionary of geology gives the same definition, but you appear to use it here to mean a layer with a specific composition. If you are using sources with a different definition, then you should give it rather than linking to an article which defines it as an intermediate layer.
  • I do not see where you have dealt with this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources call it a mantle because it is still uncertain whether Ceres has a core or not. Serendipodous 17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you need to clarify, not use a different definition from the dictionary one without explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I can really do is put the word "mantle" in quotes. Since the sources use it and don't explain it, and other sources I've looked at don't explain it. Serendipodous 10:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for myself, I found the meaning of "mantle" clear enough in context. I was going to suggest putting it in quotes, as you've now done. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ceres is a surviving protoplanet that formed 4.56 billion years ago; alongside Pallas and Vesta, the only one remaining in the inner Solar System". The only ones?
  • "it has the most water of any body in the inner Solar System after Earth" The source says "Ceres, the most water-rich body in the inner solar system after Earth". I am not clear what the source means, unless it is referring to surface water. Ceres is more water rich than Earth proportionally, but it can hardly have as much water in total as Mars, which - if I understand correctly - still has much of its water as ice and bound up in rocks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mars does have water, but Ceres is made partly of water. Even given their differences in size, Ceres still has more water than Mars. Serendipodous 22:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I think you are right. There is speculation that very large amounts may be present on Mars deep below the surface, but the known water is only a fraction of the amount on Ceres. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else addressed. Serendipodous 12:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The mantle issue is unsatisfactory but there is nothing you can do about it if no source explains. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot[edit]

  • "Ceres's internal differentiation is possibly related to its lack of a natural satellite, as satellites of main belt asteroids are mostly believed to form from collisional disruption, creating a rubble pile structure." I didn't fully grasp this at first. It could use clarification. Specifying that a rubble pile structure isn't differentiated would be enough, I think.
  • "Tholins, formed from ultraviolet irradiation of simple carbon compounds, were detected on Ceres in Ernutet crater…" I looked at the source, and it doesn't mention tholins or Ernutet crater.
  • Question: is there an accepted standard for how to refer to craters by name? In the absence of one, I would think either "Ernutet Crater", with capitalization, or "the Ernutet crater", with an article, would make more sense than how the article currently has it.

More later. A. Parrot (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Serendipodous 20:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A. Parrot, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to spot-check the sources, but I'm having difficulty finding the time. I hope to do it over the weekend, but unless I've done it, I won't be supporting or opposing. A. Parrot (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lines of longitude, unlike latitude, are arbitrary, yet apparently there's an agreed-upon system of longitude for Ceres. Is there any information about how or when this system was established? A. Parrot (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
added. Serendipodous 08:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review[edit]

I have no concerns with source quality. Though I'm not an expert in this field, the citations seem to meet the high standard set by WP's other solar system FAs. (I was rather amused to see A Companion to Roman Religion, a book in my wheelhouse and indeed my source library, listed here.) I spot-checked 20 citations and found only three faults. (Citation numbers according to the latest revision of the article.)

  • Citation 26: The page seems to be wrong; both my copy and the one currently on Google Books show the word on pages 51 and 52. (The archived version of the Google Books preview doesn't want to load.)
I'll take your word for it. I don't have access to the entire book. Serendipodous 09:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 65: The paper talks about organic compounds, but not tholins by that name. It may be partly that I'm too unfamiliar with the chemistry jargon and don't recognize an equivalent term for "tholin", but the paper doesn't say definitively that the organic compounds have been affected by radiation, only that they may have been. If I'm understanding the definition of "tholin" correctly, it seems like their presence would be proof that the organic compounds have been affected by radiation.
The line cited by cite 65 isn't about tholins. It's citation 66 that mentions tholins. Serendipodous 09:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was Citation 65 when I wrote my comment. In any case, it's this source: [5]. A. Parrot (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I'm a moron. Anyway, changed to what the source actually says. Serendipodous 16:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 117: The article mentions the presence of nitrogen and the absence of phosphorus, but it doesn't mention carbon, hydrogen, or oxygen.::
Added. Serendipodous 09:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All concerns resolved. A. Parrot (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A. Parrot, just checking if this is a source review pass and a general review support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is both. A. Parrot (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

I came looking to review it favourably, but I was dismayed to see it has been changed over from one spelling system to another since its last FA version. This isn't permitted by MoS. I've raised this at Talk:Ceres (dwarf_planet)#ENGVAR. Once this issue has been resolved, I will have a proper look at the article. John (talk)22:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to oppose per the lack of agreement in talk about what spelling the article should have. Happy to come back after this is resolved. John (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped it. Serendipodous 09:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. John (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see we are having an RfC on spelling now. Let my oppose stand until this matter is resolved.John (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. The issue of which variety of English to use would seem to be settled. I was wondering if you had any further thoughts on the article or the nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I'll post some comments here tonight. Thanks for notifying me. John (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a nice article, well-written and objective, with good sourcing and it looks to be comprehensive and up to date regarding the latest discoveries.

*Now that the thorny issue of which variant of English to use has been settled, the spelling needs to be standardised throughout. I think this one is done, but please check my work. John (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Originally considered a planet, it was also classified as an asteroid in the 1850s after the discovery of dozens of other objects in similar orbits. In 2006, it was reclassified again as a dwarf planet – the only one always inside Neptune's orbit – because, at 940 km (580 mi) in diameter, it is the only asteroid large enough for its gravity to maintain it as a spheroid in hydrostatic equilibrium. This is a lot of real estate to spend on taxonomy in the lead, and I feel it could be trimmed down a little.
    We now have Ceres was subsequently classified as an asteroid and later a dwarf planet – the only one always inside Neptune's orbit; these categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. which is better, but there has to be an even clearer formulation than this. John (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceres's small size means that any internal ocean of liquid water it may once have possessed has likely frozen by now. It is not completely frozen, however: brines still flow through the outer mantle and reach the surface, allowing cryovolcanoes such as Ahuna Mons to form at the rate of about one every 50 million years. Again, this is fascinating and vital to say, but there should be a more economical way to say it in the lead.
  • In the years between the acceptance of heliocentrism and the discovery of Neptune, several astronomers argued that mathematical laws predicted the existence of a hidden or missing planet between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. could we have dates for the first two events. I'm an astronomy geek and I don't have these dates at my fingertips, and neither will the general reader.
Fixed I see. Thank you. John (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although they did not discover Ceres, they later found the asteroids 2 Pallas, 3 Juno and 4 Vesta. Using those names seems a bit anachronistic; weren't they adopted long after, in 1852?
Fixed I see. Thank you. John (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He announced his discovery on 24 January 1801 in letters to only two fellow astronomers, his compatriot Barnaba Oriani of Milan and Bode in Berlin. I don't think we need "only".
  • On 31 December 1801, von Zach and fellow celestial policeman Heinrich W. M. Olbers found Ceres near the predicted position and thus recovered it. What is a "celestial policeman"? It sounds fascinating!
It is first mentioned in the section's second paragraph. Serendipodous 09:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it is, my apologies. If I missed it, in admittedly quite a quick read through, so may others. I wonder how to do this so it's more obvious. John (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compared to other planets and dwarf planets, Ceres's orbit is moderately (though not drastically) tilted relative to that of Earth, with an inclination (i) of 10.6° (compared to 7° for Mercury, and 17° for Pluto) and elongated, with an eccentricity (e) = 0.08 (compared to 0.09 for Mars)." isn't quite sparkling prose.
  • Ceres is believed not to have a magnetic field. Didn't Dawn take any measurements?
Revised. Serendipodous 09:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work. John (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider amalgamating the three very short sections Craters, Tectonic features and Boulders into one called Features.
If they are features, then what are cryovocanoes? Serendipodous 09:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean. It's the very short "Boulders" section that bothers me. John (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I see. Thank you. John (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...it has the most water of any body in the inner Solar System after Earth, and the likely brine pockets under its surface could provide habitats for life. Likely? I thought the existence of brine was more settled than that?
Inferred yes. Brine canot exist on Ceres's surface and Dawn only saw Ceres's surface. Serendipodous 09:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. John (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi John, how's it going? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly there, Gog. It's getting late tonight but I will have some time tomorrow to look again at this. I'm still not happy with the lead; my feeling is it may labour the taxonomy too much. But I'll come back to that last, after checking through the rest of the article again, hopefully tomorrow evening UTC. John (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took an initial chop at the prose. There's nothing major to fix here, just a few nips and tucks; I am just still a bit concerned about the lead. We certainly can't repeat the same link twice there. I'm sorry, I'm getting bonked and I will need to come back to this. It's a beautiful and fascinating article. Thanks to those who wrote it. John (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's looking good. I think that if we removed "these categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive" from the lead I could support it. This is over detailed for the lead. If it's essential to reflect this taxonomical detail in the lead, there will be a more elegant way to express it. John (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've actioned my own suggestion. Here is the cumulative diff of (mostly) my edits over the last day or so. Could you please review them and see what you think? John (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only change I have an issue with is your change of "believed" to "predicted" as regards Kepler, as I not think one can make meaningful predictions regarding God's design. I also caution you about getting involved in the whole planet/dwarf planet mess. I fought that battle for a decade and lost. Serendipodous 19:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I've restored "believed" as it makes little difference and perhaps you're right. There's always a tension on science articles between dwelling on the taxonomy ("is Pluto a planet?") versus describing the phenomenon ("how big is Pluto?"). Science geeks (and I include myself in that) often overvalue the former over the latter. Taxonomy is interesting and important, but it should always be in second place to the phenomenon as it is a social construct which can change and ultimately doesn't matter. I (and I suspect most readers) am more interested in whether life could be present on it (for example), than in whether it is an asteroid, a dwarf planet, or both, or something else. Thanks anyway for the caution. John (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kwami[edit]

I haven't reviewed the whole article recently, but had a couple changes in wording reverted because they were rejected here. Though I can't see where they were ever mentioned here.

Ceres's composition is not consistent is rather awkward to say aloud. The Cererean composition works better IMO.
internal processes ... unlike on Vesta is semantically odd. In contrast to Vesta avoids that, though maybe there's a better way to put it.

— kwami (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ce'd it. Serendipodous 21:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I liked your ce Serendipodous, and I am ok with "Ceres's", although it is a little awkward, "Cererean" is even more so. We can agree to disagree, Kwami. They were discussed just above as one of a batch of copyedits. John (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)/archive2&oldid=1117380367"