Talk:Weywot

Generic computer generated images

Do we really want to start using false images that suggest we known far more about any object than we do? A small asteroid/moon is a small asteroid/moon unless we have a real photo of it like we do for Phobos (moon) and Phoebe (moon). And if we are going to use false advertising we should at least limit them to 180px. -- Kheider (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, delete it. I almost didn't respond to your edit summary because I didn't imagine it would be this bad. Do we even know if the albedo is right? — kwami (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As is common with small bodies, the albedo and density are assumed. -- Kheider (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Myself, Kwamikagami, and Icalanise seems to believe that these fake images can easily mislead the general public.

Given that these keep getting restored, I uploaded a note of 'this image is not yet available' at the name here, to override the transclusion from Commons. — kwami (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Size and density of Weywot

In this case, does it really make any sense to assume a density similar to the primary? Quaoar, if the numbers are right, is about the densest thing in the Kuiper Belt; Weywot is suspected to be a collisional fragment (consisting mostly of ice, and therefore a low density object). Not that Weywot's density is currently a major issue in this article (and the reference really does make this assumption...) Sideways713 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Weywot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs) 07:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Only issue I could find:

   • In 2013 and prior - this sounds strange, maybe reword it.

Fixed. Nrco0e (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Issues:

   • Is ref 1 reliable?
   • Is ref 8 reliable?
   • Is ref 10 reliable?
   • Is ref 11 reliable?

I believe all of these references are reliable.

Ref 1 is intended to provide a citation for Terry-Ann Suer's full name. There's no other source that mentions her name without using initials, and this is the only one I can find. This website was published by Suer herself and it pretty much lists all her academic publications, including the CBAT publication of Weywot's discovery [ref 2] which indeed confirms that she was involved in it.

Ref 8 is the International Occultation Timing Association (IOTA's) main website for publishing occultation results see link. Occultation results from this webpage have been cited in reputable journals, such as this 2021 paper by Levine et al. here. Therefore it is appropriate to use this website as a reference in this article.

Ref 10 is a webpage maintained by Will Grundy, who is a well-established researcher and expert in binary TNO systems see publications. Considering his reputable background, I trust the data he publishes on his webpage about binary TNOs.

Ref 11 (plus 13 and 14 which I added) is intended to confirm specifically that Brown is responsible for the 2007 and 2008 Hubble observations of Weywot, since he is the principal investigator of these observations. These refs are mentioned in Fraser et al. 2010 (ref 12), the official paper publishing the results from these observations. Nrco0e (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1. c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   I'm not sure if this article covers all of the main aspects. Is there anything else to add? (I don't know a lot about this topic.)

This is pretty much all we know about Weywot. I've looked through every relevant source available, including academic papers on the Astrophyiscs Data System; those that I've left out are either completely outdated (Vachier et al. 2012) or not relevant or informative enough. Nrco0e (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1. b. (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Not much to say about this article apart from above. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 12:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Weywot could play a role in perturbing the rings of 50000 Quaoar by producing irregularities in the ring's width and density? Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05629-6.epdf?sharing_token=gxSolbwFLNRxm3gKPYug6tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M64TyCEs9Z0PCfLpZmcbRG1VIn6aUkXZZHtuZJTz3SRYgPxwjgBVG-L86kb4UFB9vjy3ebiZ9OYcfRptTCNDo0mucqbrvLYnB68B4ms6LHJIoOerKjKwSh5eqqYzOuE4g%3D Page 6
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/USS Romeo

Improved to Good Article status by Nrco0e (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Weywot; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - I'm actually failing to find the exact verification, but that doesn't really matter per below. Also @Nrco0e, you should be using the pagination of the actual source, not the PDF.
• Interesting: - I think most readers wouldn't understand this hook; I do understand it, but don't find it very interesting. Maybe if I think about it for a second, but it doesn't, y'know, hook me—and that's as someone who'd actually heard of Weywot before. Ideas of things that would be more interesting include: that it was named by the people indigenous to the land where it was discovered (a sentence or two might need to be copied/paraphrased from 50000 Quaoar to explain that full context); that they initially couldn't figure out which direction it was going; some play on the god Weywot being the son of the god Quaoar and the moon Weywot revolving around the asteroid Quaoar.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Need to find a new hook, but otherwise all good. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Here's some options

• ALT1: "... that the moon Weywot was named by the indigenous Tongva people of California, where its dwarf planet, 50000 Quaoar, was discovered?"
• ALT2: "... that scientists initially could not find out which direction Weywot was orbiting?"

I'm not exactly sure how to make a play off of them being gods. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: ALT1 works (I've taken the liberty of a slight copy-edit), but is not currently fully verified in body. ALT2 passes, so up to you whether you want to add the necessary details to the articles for both to pass, or pass now as just ALT2. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Let's just go with passing this solely with alt2 at this point. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

on ALT2. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)