# Talk:Moons of Haumea

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moons of Haumea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have the following comments regarding the article.  —Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Is there a way to put bolding in the first line, perhaps by rewording the first sentence?
Amended. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You use "appear" repeatedly in the first few lines. Is there a way to have more variation in wording?
Amended. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
who named the moons, as the names are different from the one the Caltech team gave them.
Amended. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Namaka, the smaller, inner satellite of Haumea, was discovered on June 30, 2005, and nicknamed "Blitzen". In the myth of the Hawaiian goddess Haumea, "Her many children sprang from different parts of her body." Thus the Haumean moons are named after Haumea's children. -- these two sentences seem like non sequiters.
Amended. (Ok, whole paragraph rewritten)... Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is a little confusing on the subject of actually viewing the moons. Perhaps this paragraph could be clarified:
At present, the orbits of the Haumean moons appear almost exactly edge-on from Earth, with the moons potentially occulting Haumea.[8] Observation of such transits would provide precise information on the size and shape of Haumea and its moons, as happened in the late 1980s with Pluto and Charon.[9] The tiny change in brightness of the system during these occultations will require at least a medium-aperture professional telescope for detection.[10] Hiʻiaka last occulted Haumea in 1999, a few years before discovery, and will not do so again for some 130 years.[11] However, in a situation unique among regular satellites, Namaka's orbit is being greatly torqued by Hiʻiaka, preserving the viewing angle of Namaka–Haumea transits for several more years.
Extra sentence added before paragraph to clarify. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Over the timescale of the system, it should have been tidally damped into a more circular orbit. - such sentences appear to be jargon and don't explain anything to the general reader.
Amended with hopefully helpful expansion of ideas. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears that it has been disturbed by orbital resonances with the more massive Hiʻiaka, due to converging orbits as they move outward from Haumea due to tidal dissipation. The moons may have been caught in and then escaped from orbital resonance several times; they currently are in or at least close to an 8:3 resonance. This strongly perturbs Namaka's orbit, with a current precession of ~20°.  -- this is another example of jargon plus poor wording ("Tt appears that it has been disturbed by..")
Changed a little; no doubt the other editors will find further improvements. Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
If it turns out to have a similar albedo to the dwarf planet itsef, Namaka would be about 170 km in diameter. -- why is this?
Amended. (Could probably use that Spitzer reference from Haumea though). Iridia (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
—Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments
The article is immensely improved. Very nice.
"The unusual spectrum, along with similar absorption lines on Haumea, led Brown and colleagues to conclude that capture was an unlikely model for the system's formation,..." - what does "capture" mean in this context?
Sentence reworded for clarity. Iridia (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"Observation of such transits..." - are transits the same as osculations?
pretty much yes Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
—Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, even though I don't exactly quite understand everything, you guys have done a standout job of being accommodatating and explaining. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written  b (MoS): Follows MoS 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Sets the context  b (focused): Remains focused on subject 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Good job. Congratulations!
—Mattisse (Talk) 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Found Namaka 6 hrs later than it is supposed to be. But it is transiting across the face of Haumea. Also found Namaka a 2nd night. Also 6 hrs late. -- (2010 Aug 19 Mike Brown and Emily Schaller at Nordic Optical Telescope in the Canary Islands) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheider (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The category hierarchy is:

Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2004
Category:Haumea (dwarf planet) (1 C, 5 P)
Category:Moons of Haumea (3 P)
Moons of Haumea
The problem is that Moons of Haumea were discovered in 2005, not 2004. What's the standard procedure for fixing something like this, if it's worth fixing? I'll post this at WP:ASTRO in a few days, if no response here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moons of Haumea. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111105134/http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~fabrycky/EL61/ to http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~fabrycky/EL61/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/viewAbstract.asp?CKey=%7BDC1A2D7A-1E8E-4C58-A2AB-F0FA8673515C%7D&MKey=%7B35A8F7D5-A145-4C52-8514-0B0340308E94%7D&AKey=%7BAAF9AABA-B0FF-4235-8AEC-74F22FC76386%7D&SKey=%7B545CAD5F-068B-4FFC-A6E2-1F2A0C6ED978%7D
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718182107/http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/viewAbstract.asp?CKey=%7B421E1C09-F75A-4ED0-916C-8C0DDB81754D%7D&MKey=%7B35A8F7D5-A145-4C52-8514-0B0340308E94%7D&AKey=%7BAAF9AABA-B0FF-4235-8AEC-74F22FC76386%7D&SKey=%7B545CAD5F-068B-4FFC-A6E2-1F2A0C6ED978%7D to http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/viewAbstract.asp?CKey=%7B421E1C09-F75A-4ED0-916C-8C0DDB81754D%7D&MKey=%7B35A8F7D5-A145-4C52-8514-0B0340308E94%7D&AKey=%7BAAF9AABA-B0FF-4235-8AEC-74F22FC76386%7D&SKey=%7B545CAD5F-068B-4FFC-A6E2-1F2A0C6ED978%7D
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/08600/08636.html
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In different places in the article, Hi'aka is stated as having either a 310km, 320km, or 350km diameter (or 160km radius), and I don't see much that implies any of those figures being more reliable than the others; indeed few if any are even cited, so where did they come from? It is after all a nearly 13% (so, more than 1/8th) variation from smallest to largest, which is fairly significant, and which one you end up thinking it is could depend entirely on what bit of the article you randomly skim. Which of them should we standardise on, if indeed we shouldn't instead go with "330km +/- 20km"? Note that this would also seem to affect the size of Namaka given that most of its stated dimensions are simply derived from an educated guess that it's "about 1/10th the mass" of Hi'aka and about the same density... 51.7.16.171 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Secondary thought: looking at the most recent (2009!) citation, which is where the (most likely?) "320km" estimate seems to come from, the sizes seem to be derived from the (still somewhat loose, due to poor observation SNR, difficultly resolving Namaka at all, and the complex mutual interactions of the three bodies' gravity) orbit-determined masses and an assumed and density, and secondarily from observed magnitude and assumed albedo. Seeing as both of those have been shown to be incorrect for Haumea itself by a recent (2017) occultation survey, what might that mean for the sizes of the satellites, assuming they're made of similar stuff to their parent given that the Haumea system and the Haumids in general are all one big collisional family? The lower-than-expected albedo would seem to pull the size estimates upwards, but at the same time the revised density (reduced for Haumea itself, but still ~1.8x the "pure water" 1.0g/mL assumed for its satellites, thus a considerable increase) would seem to pull them downwards... 51.7.16.171 (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Your figure "330km +/- 20km" probably vastly underestimates the uncertainty, which is actually many tens of percent (it's more like "330 +/- 200"). Compare this recent study by Hastings et al. (2016). The Wiki article in its current form does say that the size is uncertain, but you are right that one figure for its size should be agreed on for the purpose of clarity. Given that the 2016 paper I linked states a radius of 150 km (+/- tens of percent), maybe this should be the value used here. It is important to understand that our knowledge of the physical properties of these objects is very preliminary. Arguing over a difference of a few tens of km's is pointless. The value of 300 km is likely right to one significant figure. Also, this isn't anything specific to Haumea's satellites. Our size estimates of most small Solar System bodies are uncertain! To avoid the impression that our knowledge of Haumea's moons is somehow more uncertain that other objects, this point shouldn't be given more room in this article than in others. Renerpho (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)