Talk:2 Pallas/GA1

GA Reassessment

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 minor issues that may need to be addressed.

• In the lead section, the sentence "It was the second asteroid to be discovered, found and named by astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers on March 28, 1802." This seems to imply that it was the second asteroid discovered by Olbers on March 28, 1802, which is not the case. I recommend splitting this into separate sentences.
  • Note: I split this up by adding the date of discovery to the first sentence. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It now has my wording, which gives more emphasis to the order of discovery. Revert if you prefer. kwami (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer your wording. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "History of observation" section is unreferenced.

Done. kwami (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the same section, I believe that the parenthetical statement "(Members have semi-major axis = 2.50–2.82 AU; inclination = 33–38°.)" should come before the period in the previous sentence.

I disagree. They are two independent sentences. kwami (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I merged the sentences while trying to make it clear that the second part does not infer the first.—RJH (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section, I find the statement "(to within uncertainty)" confusing. Could you explain what this means?

Done, though I made it a footnote as that's probably best when trying to explain precise terminology in imprecise terms. kwami (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a "citation needed" tag in the "Characteristics" section.

Those numbers seem to be inconsistent, but I don't know how to verify them. kwami (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has helped out, so this is good now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 13 does not appear to be a reliable source. Although it says that it was based on the 1911 Encylopaedia Brittanica, anyone can edit it.
  • Note: I removed the reference, as there was another, more reliable reference already listed. GaryColemanFan (talk)
  • Meanwhile I'd redirected to a scan of the original EB. kwami (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reference 23 is missing a publisher.

Done. kwami (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 23 is a dead link.

Fixed. kwami (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend alphabetizing the "External links" section.
  • Note: I alphabetized it. If there was a reason for the different order, feel free to change it back. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I did the same. kwami (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict: did much of the above, but got reverted. Following up. kwami (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was trying to take care of some of the smaller things. I'm finished editing for now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am placing the reassessment on hold for one week to allow for these changes to be made and/or discussed. If work is still being done at the end of the week, the hold can be extended. Please get in touch here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the condition of the article. I don't agree that a parenthetical sentence can stand on its own, but this isn't a big enough concern to hold up the review. I'm closing this as a keep, and I encourage the editors to keep adding to it and touching it up as new information becomes available. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then what has to be done to make this a Good Article? --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)