Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 13, 2016. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 23, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
1990 Earth-grazing meteoroid above
Czechoslovakia and
Poland was captured from two sites, which for the first time enabled geometrical calculations of the
orbit of such a body? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 3 July 2019 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Jan Kameníček; et al. (11 May 2020).
"Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 3 (1): 5.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2020.005.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q94495834.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
and the updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia page under a
CC BY-SA-3.0 license (
2020). |
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)
I'd say that this article is close to B class, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings#Quality scale:
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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. | ||
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)
I see. Thanks. That means that the article is now ready, so I'll pass the review.
At 44 kg, how big would it have been? -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 13, 2016. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 23, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
1990 Earth-grazing meteoroid above
Czechoslovakia and
Poland was captured from two sites, which for the first time enabled geometrical calculations of the
orbit of such a body? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 3 July 2019 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Jan Kameníček; et al. (11 May 2020).
"Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 3 (1): 5.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2020.005.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q94495834.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
and the updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia page under a
CC BY-SA-3.0 license (
2020). |
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)
I'd say that this article is close to B class, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings#Quality scale:
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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. | ||
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)
I see. Thanks. That means that the article is now ready, so I'll pass the review.
At 44 kg, how big would it have been? -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)