Talk:US researchers find a large asteroid held together by forces other than gravity

Reply to reviewer.

 * Half of the stuff in the article isn't mentioned in either of the two sources. Where does it come from?

Frankly, it comes from their own article. Maybe, I am misusing the access I have to scientific journals, since it is completely out-of-topic for my current studies. I will try to clarify the difficult-to-understand points, and look for a more open-to-public source.

They are, indeed, different. But, both of them have low  (that is, they do not reflect the radar s as much as a typical  would), and the non- composition would have been puzzling, if it was not for the  observations of 21 Lutetia. Thus, the comparison of spectral properties allows to conclude that 1950DA has composition similar to 21 Lutetia: with grain density of 3.55 g/cm³.
 * Not to mention there was a completely factually incorrect bit in the article about comparing to . They are as different from each other as  and . There is no reasonable comparison that can be made between the two.

While 21 Lutetia has high density and possible porosity of 10-15%, low density of 1950DA (when the same material and grain density as observed on 21 Lutetia are taken as known) "implies a macro-porosity of 51±19% and indicates that it is a rubble-pile asteroid".

Spectral observations (not specified exactly what kind of spectral observations) of 1950DA indicate either an or  classification in the. However, its low optical albedo and low radar ratio rule out the E-type classification.
 * Why was it assumed, to start with, that 1950 DA is an ?

It can be noted that and  are very much different. But, values of are comparable; therefore, the regolith on surface of 1950DA is considered similar to the.
 * About comparisons...

Alright, I found a couple of sources, will add them. Possibly send closed-access article to scoop@wikinewsie.org. Wikiwide (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, the bit about Lutertia makes a bit more sense in that context, but that's not what you said in your original article. You said, "Low radar albedo of 1950DA is similar to that of 21 Lutetia, previously explored by Rosetta spacecraft, implying that 1950DA is a rubble-pile asteroid." That implies things that aren't true. Be precise in your language.


 * A couple other things: first off, paid sources aren't allowed. If anyone can't access it, it doesn't count as a source. Secondly, literally half of what you had in the article wasn't listed in any sources. I assume you've fixed this, but I don't have time to check right now, but I'll check tomorrow. Stuff that's in the article *has* to be in the sources. This is often a problem with articles, and we can't pass articles with unsourced material. &mdash; Gopher65talk 03:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm far less grumpy than I was last night. I'll review this again this morning. At a glance it looks better than it did after the last review.&mdash; Gopher65talk 12:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2811721 [Passed]
Pizero wanted me to specify that paywalls go against policy, and that we don't normally publish articles that use paywalled sources (like Nature). Everyone has to be able to read the sources to verify what is written. I already passed this one, and I found a way around Nature's paywall (kinda:P) to read the parts you referenced, but in the future articles with sources like that won't be accepted. &mdash; Gopher65talk 13:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)