Rock Denied Moon Status

jeffy124 writes: "A rock found in a 1986 Voyager 2 photo near Uranus has been denied moon status. The object, dubbed S/1986 U 10, was first noticed in 1999 by researchers at the U of Arizona and is about 25 miles across. The International Astronomical Union wants more definitive photos of the object before they grant it moon stature and a real name."

Some corrections to the summary...

[morcheeba]

Don't mind me, but I found 2 signifcant factual errors in the description.

First off, the rock has only been photographed once. So, saying it was "first noticed" is true, but misleading - it's only been "noticed" once.

Second, it's not that the IAU wants a picture in order to see if it qualifies as a moon, they just want more proof that the object even exists. So, it hasn't been "denied moon status"; it's that (in light of the the available evidence) its entire existence is being denied. CNN made the same error in their headline, "Tiny rock around Uranus denied moon status"

Please forgive me if I sound grumpy. I was just expecting a little more from a 60-word summary of an 8 sentence article (and 3 of these sentences don't describe the rock in question).

Re:Some corrections to the summary...

[rde]

I too read the CNN story; it was also on a bunch of other news sites. Each of them had the same headline - or some slight variation thereon. NYT [nytimes.com], for example.
Don't feel grumpy. Revel in the fact that you're superior to all those subeditors who mindlessly copy headlines written by AP hacks.

Re:Some corrections to the summary...

[morcheeba]

Actually, I had a tough-as-nails journalism teacher in high school whose spirit comes out in me every once in a while. No passive voice sentences were allowed ;).

Ok, I was also a bit miffed that, about 2 weeks ago, I had taken the time to write a good summary for a news article, only to have it rejected. That's fine, but nine days later a not so good summary of the same article appeared on the front page. I understand how it happens - different editors have different standards, get zillions of articles to review (I presume), and don't talk much to each other. Some people have proposed that, to avoid duplicate stories, when an editor submits a story slashcode should check to see if it has links in common with other recently-submitted stories. I'd suggest expanding that to include rejected submissions, too. That way, if a second editor deems a story worthwhile, they can pick among all the submissions. I know that they can let an article ferment, but that's aparently too tedious - easier to reject an article right away rather than reject it later.

Re:Some corrections to the summary...

[jeffy124]

try repeating that comment on this thread [slashdot.org]

Re:Some corrections to the summary...

[morcheeba]

Thanks for the story and thanks for showing me the new thread. Even though I criticized your article, I didn't mean it personally. I just wanted to clarify something that got through three professional editors (AP, CNN, Slashdot), and was annoyed at the Slashdot editors for another unrelated article.

re: rock denied moon status

[CyberSpyder]

they have to do a lot of looking and researching before they grant moon status to a "rock." For it to be a moon it also has to have a visible orbit around the planet.

Re: rock denied moon status

[AnalogBoy]

Erm, you mean like those little track lines they show, like the one earth is on around the sun? I've always wondered where the line that goes through the earth enters and exits.. I mean, that would have to be a big hole! And what about the rotation of the earth? How does the hole move? And the axis? I figure all in all that the entire tropic zone would have to be eliminated, or at least able to move in some way.. Its a conspiracy i tell you! A conspiracy! (Boy im glad the guys at the hospital got me dragon dictate.. its hard to type with this straightjacket on)