This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related toAstronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Highlights all main features talked about in the reliable sources that cover the topic, notably it's close approach, various technical details, and naming.Footlessmouse (talk)05:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No controversies discussed, encyclopedic tone upheld throughout, has no clear editorial bias and is otherwise a neutral article about an astronomical object.Footlessmouse (talk)04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is itstable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute:
Outside of notable cases of vandalism up to about a month ago, there is no history of edit waring I can see. It has been mostly untouched for about a month.Footlessmouse (talk)03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I am new to this, I would normally ask for a second opinion, but virtually every item on the list is unobjectionable, and perWP:GANOT, I should pass it. Thank you for the quick fixes.
I would ask you add actual alt text to the images that summarizes the caption for those who cannot download the images. Currently, the alt text on the first picture used is the name of the image, which is a very bad alt text.Footlessmouse (talk)03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Although 2020 BX12 has a sufficiently longobservation arc for its orbit to be accurately determined, the asteroid has not yet been issued a permanentminor planet number by the Minor Planet Center due to it being only recently discovered." Should be broken in half. I don't think this counts as synthesis, because , while I don't think it's technically original research, it is not proper to cite a sentence half-way through.Footlessmouse (talk)04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I previously flagged a conference talk by Patrick Taylor, but it is sufficiently reliable for the statement made, and is accompanied by an additional citation to a reliable source.Footlessmouse (talk)05:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I previously flagged johnstonarchive.net, but after reviewing the site andWP:RSSELF, I can see that the site's owner qualifies as an established expert with previously published material in reliable sources.Footlessmouse (talk)05:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This concludes my initial review. No other problems found. Please respond to the suggestions above for completion of the review. The GAN will be placed on hold for up to seven days in the meantime. Thanks!Footlessmouse (talk)06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nrco0e: excellent job. I appreciate you very quick edits to comply with my suggestions. In the future, however, please let the reviewer know here on the discussion page if you have completed any of suggestions, I almost didn't notice as watching this page is not the same as watching the article and I forgot to watch the article. I therefore did not notice your edits until a few minutes ago. Thanks for the quick response and a great nomination that was easy to review!Footlessmouse (talk)07:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Yeah, the outdated template still valid. I haven't found the time to update this article yet. Feel free to move this to GAR, because I don't think I'll find the time and motivation to update this in the next couple of months.Nrco0e(talk •contribs)21:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nrco0e: Would you like to nominate it toWP:GAR? You'll be able to describe the updates needed better than I can, and I nominate a lot of articles there already (and new voices are always appreciated).Z1720 (talk)21:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nrco0e: Just following up with this: I see the Makemake article was nominated at FAR. This article's GAR hasn't been started yet. Does this article still need a GAR, and if so would you be interested in posting it?Z1720 (talk)18:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(809875) 2020 BX12 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Nrco0e(talk •contribs)17:36, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nrco0e: It looks like something happened when this GAR was set up, and it didn't transcribe onto the GAR list. I think this will need to be closed and reopened with the proper text added. I suggest usingthis script to help with GAR nominations (it is what I use). Feel free to ping me with questions or concerns.Z1720 (talk)15:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have updated the physical characteristics section. I still need to mention the fact that 2020 BX12 was the last binary asteroid discovered by Arecibo somewhere in the body (after the lead) and I still update the satellite section and polish up the other sections. Right now I'm busy working on another article so currently this GAR is on pause for a couple days.Nrco0e(talk •contribs)18:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.jpg)
