![]() | (307261) 2002 MS4 has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 3, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Where did the old diameter of ~1386 come from? Now that I check the history logs I see that User:Michaelbusch kept re-instating it in place of wild guesses. User_talk:68.186.106.251 was the 1st to insert it on 11 Sept 2006 :-) Kheider 06:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
With abs mag (H)=3.8, even assuming an albedo of 0.04 in 2006 would have resulted in a diameter of only 1150. -- Kheider ( talk) 18:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Needs an image (even though it will just be a dot!) Fig ( talk) 13:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on (307261) 2002 MS4. 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}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on (307261) 2002 MS4. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Nrco0e: Regarding your addition Calculated from the projected elliptical dimension of 842 × 688 km, or triaxial dimension of 842 × 842 × 688 km. The mean diameter of 787 km is derived from the cube root of the product of the given triaxial dimensions.
, I wonder where you take the information about the triaxial dimensions from. The occultation does not give triaxial dimensions; it gives an elliptical cross section , which may be assumed to be from a triaxial object with volume (it almost certainly isn't, but whatever). It is almost never for large bodies, even though this is possible. Do you have any source for why it should be the rare one (or the not-so-rare one, for that matter)? If not, I suggest to completely remove all of this, including the mean diameter. The source just doesn't give this information, and a lot of the assumptions must be
WP:OR.
Renerpho (
talk)
04:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
There is one more mathematical quirk here: The fit 842 × 688 km is done with just two chords (four points), which is not enough to define an ellipse (even assuming that the two chords had perfect accuracy, which they don't). [1] So, those numbers must come with considerable uncertainty (hundreds of km's in each axis, if I should guess; the uncertainty is not specified). Having a mean diameter based on a triaxial shape based on those numbers is questionable. Renerpho ( talk) 04:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Successful observation of a stellar occultation tonight, which was actually streamed live via Youtube. The occultation is starting near the 39:43 minute mark, and took about 23 seconds. The prediction details can be found here. Note that this is the first of three occultations by 2002 MS4 this summer, the other two coming up on August 8th and August 12th. Renerpho ( talk) 01:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Isn't Ceres the largest known planetoid without a moon? This google search says that it is just another term for asteroid and Ceres is the largest known asteroid. (I don't think 2002 MS4 is an asteroid) 108.46.173.109 ( talk) 12:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
We are giving a 3-sigma uncertainty of abt. 14 days for the perihelion date. This may be a sensible thing to do, but right now the article doesn't say what that reason is. The reference gives dtp=4.6936 days (1-sigma), and there has to be a good reason not to follow that. We could point here for why 3-sigma is a reasonable choice for some data, although I still don't see why we don't just give the 1-sigma value from the source. Renerpho ( talk) 05:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it known if there are any yet suggested? I don't even know where you'd start to look, but it seems odd that there aren't even any proposed ones from some time in the last 21 years. Or might it just be left as a number forever, as a deliberate piece of astronomical weirdness, seeing as it's now been so long? (How long did Albion run before being named, again?) 51.219.168.15 ( talk) 13:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane ( talk · contribs) 02:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Very interesting asteroid. I am not an expert about asteroids in general so I will focus more on formatting and copyediting, though I will review the sources to the best of my ability. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Overall, the article is very well written! I will try to review the citations as soon as possible, but because I am not an expert about this topic, I have asked for a second opinion for reviewing this article. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Because of time: @ CactiStaccingCrane:, @ Nrco0e:.
I am no astronomer, but I do edit in the general natural-sciences area. To my eye, all of the citations used are scientific papers (definitely acceptable) or publications by either the Jet Propulsion Laboratory or the Minor Planet Center, which I assume are considered reliable astronomy sources. My only concern is that [8] and [9] are theses, which are not necessarily acceptable sources. Nrco0e, please justify their use. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 20:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)