2017 YE5 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: October 19, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is transcluded from Talk:2017 YE5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Footlessmouse (talk · contribs) 12:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will also take this one, I am now more familiar with all the sources and layout of these articles after reviewing a previous submission by same nominator. Footlessmouse (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   No major spelling or grammar errors detected with Word. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   All complaints have been addressed, prose is clear, concise, and accessible (though I have an advanced degree in physics so version of accessible may not be perfect) Footlessmouse (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   No remaining problems with grammar or prose. Article is short and concise, each sentence is clear. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   MOS:LEAD- All statements in lead are discussed in body with appropriate citations. Only final statement in lead itself is referenced pointing to the discovery, but others are not required to avoid double citing facts. (MOS:LEADCITE). First sentence defines the object and the lead summarizes the body and the object's most notable aspects. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   In compliance with MOS:LAYOUT, order is correct. Appropriate section titles and number of sections given the article's relatively small size. One section each for the discovery and naming of the system. Next section covers characterization, solar orbit, and observations. The final body section covers characterization of the binary system itself. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   MOS:W2W - All complaints have been addressed, all flagged words are appropriately used. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   MOS:FICTION is not applicable. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   MOS:Embedded lists - there are no embedded lists. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Notes and reference sections follow the guideline. Sections are separated with three notes and 26 references all correctly formatted. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No direct quotes used, appropriate inline citations provided, all reliable sources used and nothing is likely to be challenged; no contentious material. I previously reviewed Talk:2020 BX12/GA1 with same nominator about similar object that uses many of the same sources. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   C. It contains no original research:

   One case of possible original research (synthesis) detected in review was corrected by nominator. Article is now free from both. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   copyvios search using turnitin and links do not reveal any problems. No turnitin results, 13.8% on reference results, for observatory names, a few short and common phrases, and the titles of sources. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   It covers all the main aspects of the system from the sources provided. Devoting a section to each main topic. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It does not drift off topic, the article stays focused on summarizing the system and its discovery. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Is an article on astronomical object, no controversies discussed. No editorial bias detected and encyclopedic tone is upheld throughout. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Article is stable. Major developments took place on October 11th and 12th, no edits since then. No history of edit waring. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images tagged Template:PD-USGov-NASA and are therefore free from copyright restrictions for our purposes. There are restrictions on inappropriate use under applicable US law as stated on the images' pages. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Seven images all highly relevant. Four are animated. Appropriate and explanatory captions provided. All images of the object itself, its binary system, or its discovery. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article passes all criteria, final thoughts in section below. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixes

• spanned six days since its discovery => spanned six days starting from its discovery or something similar. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Although the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Asteroid Radar Research team credits 2017 YE₅'s discovery to the Mount Lemmon Survey, the Minor Planet Center formally considers the Oukaïmeden Observatory to be the first observer and discoverer of 2017 YE₅. can you fix this? This does violate MOS:W2W and may violate WP:NOR. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• once it has been observed for over at least four oppositions, which would take several years => change "would" to something like "will" or "is expected to". Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Having such a small Earth MOID => Given its small Earth MOID. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Extensive observations and refinements of 2017 YE₅'s orbit have ruled out future possibilities of Earth impacts, hence it was subsequently removed from the JPL Sentry Risk Table on 6 January 2018 => The system was removed from the JPL Sentry Risk Table on 6 January 2018, after extensive observations and refinements of 2017 YE₅'s orbit ruled out future possibilities of Earth impacts. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 2018 Earth approach Combine first two sentences if possible, otherwise fill out or reword some so they are not so stubby. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Nevertheless optical observations of 2017 YE₅ continued after its close approach to Earth Can you clarify. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Footlessmouse: Edited the article according to your suggestions. I decided to completely remove the line of concern in your second fix suggestion since I found it irrelevant to the discovery of the object; the Minor Planet Center will only define the proper discoverer of the object once it is numbered. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions

• Equal-mass binary systems are thought to be rare among the population of binary near-Earth asteroids is a seeming MOS:W2W violation, but seems to be appropriately sourced. Can it be reworded, though? Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (average orbit distance) => "orbital distance". Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Marina Brozović and s Anne Virkki are these links to notable scientists just waiting to have pages created for them? Footlessmouse (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edited the article according to your suggestions. The redlinks to Marina Brozović and Anne Virkki both remain as they are notable in the field of Solar System radar astronomy. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final thoughts

• Suggestion remove some of the references to the name of 2017 YE₅ in the article replacing it where appropriate with "it", "the system", etc.

Previously reviewed article for this nominator found Talk:2020 BX12/GA1. As before, thank you Nrco0e for your quick responses and cooperation. I have made some copy edits that can be seen here. I also had a mentor look over the last GA review I did for this nominator and they agreed, that information can be found on the GA review page Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 8/GA1.

After a critical rereading of the article to find anything I might have missed, I fixed a couple of small problems that weren't worth asking someone else to do and I have determined that the article otherwise qualifies for GA status. The article is well written in the same style followed by all the other GA astronomical objects of similar notability and it is well cited with reliable sources. It is clear and precise, summing up major points without unnecessary details (thought this is a fine line for technical articles). The name is subject to change in a matter of several years, as noted by the article, but a redirect will be proper at that time. As noted in the last review, the article is short, but passes all criteria for GA status, and by WP:GANOT the article passes. Excellent job once again!! Footlessmouse (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]