Talk:Main belt asteroid No. 274301 named 'Wikipedia'

Review of revision 1791944 [Not ready]

Revision 1791944 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Below minimal length for a standalone article. At least three paragraphs, and probably four or more times as much text. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1791944 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Below minimal length for a standalone article. At least three paragraphs, and probably four or more times as much text. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1792638 [Not ready]

Revision 1792638 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: What exactly is the focal news event here? Something that just happened, within the past day or two. An announcement, a decision? By whom? The lede should explain clearly what this event is and why it is significant. Following the lede, additional paragraphs present details and background, from most important near the top to most peripheral near the bottom. For example, when reading through this to see what had happened recently, I had to read down just about to the bottom of the article, whereas this should be mentioned, succinctly, in the lede. The announcement of the name is now four days old, which isn't recent enough. Some of the sources appear to be dated more recently than that. Is there some development in this story that has happened in the past day or two? We do not use reference footnotes. It can be helpful to use html comments, <!-- like this -->, in the text of the article to help the reviewer know which source to look in for the information. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1792638 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: What exactly is the focal news event here? Something that just happened, within the past day or two. An announcement, a decision? By whom? The lede should explain clearly what this event is and why it is significant. Following the lede, additional paragraphs present details and background, from most important near the top to most peripheral near the bottom. For example, when reading through this to see what had happened recently, I had to read down just about to the bottom of the article, whereas this should be mentioned, succinctly, in the lede. The announcement of the name is now four days old, which isn't recent enough. Some of the sources appear to be dated more recently than that. Is there some development in this story that has happened in the past day or two? We do not use reference footnotes. It can be helpful to use html comments, <!-- like this -->, in the text of the article to help the reviewer know which source to look in for the information. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

The thing is that the Minor Planet Circulars are now published with a lag. So the information about the naming became available only yesterday (January 30) in the evening. You can see that the lists were updated on Jan 30:

• Minor Planet Names: Alphabetical List
• Discovery Circumstances: Numbered Minor Planets (270001)-(275000)

--Amakuha (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So the circular is dated the 27th but actually became available on the 30th? That would be a valid reason for reckoning freshness from the 30th. It should be made clear in the article. --Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Already circulating

This link's already going around the Twittersphere, a cleaned-up version with detail ASAP would be a good thing - chance to be the breaking news source. Commentary from WMF? - David Gerard (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd heard something (via IRC) about the link being spread around. It's clearly labeled as not having passed review, so readers are not uninformed thereof. I'm working on it; I can't work faster than as fast as I can, which is how fast I work anyway. --Pi zero (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

But of course :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1793205 [Passed]

Revision 1793205 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I was unable to extract from the sources some of the information in the article. I couldn't tell when the provisional designation was assigned (the source for that doesn't mention those two days, but does mention a later one); I couldn't tell at which observation the orbit was calculated; and I couldn't tell which previous observations were under which provisional designation. A well-conducted interview with the discover could be quite interesting. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1793205 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I was unable to extract from the sources some of the information in the article. I couldn't tell when the provisional designation was assigned (the source for that doesn't mention those two days, but does mention a later one); I couldn't tell at which observation the orbit was calculated; and I couldn't tell which previous observations were under which provisional designation. A well-conducted interview with the discover could be quite interesting. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.