Talk:253 Mathilde

The good article status of this article is being reassessed to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 00:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 253 Mathilde article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	253 Mathilde 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 2, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

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 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 High-importance).

Almost GA. I am requesting a minor clarification here:

• requiring 17.4 days to complete a revolution.

What is a revolution? We need a wikilink. Carlosguitar 12:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've clarified it. Were there other concerns? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA listed - I want to thank you Bob (RJHall) per his extensive edits and everybody who helped to meets GA criteira. Thanks again guys. Carlosguitar 17:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! — RJH (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't that be half of 52800m in the equasion in footnote 7, giving an escape velocity of approximately 11.4 m/s? 52800 is the value cited for the average diameter, rather than the radius. Dependent Variable (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes you're right (although I get 11.5). The formula for the surface gravity has the same problem: it should be four times that amount, or 0.01.—RJH (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no Australian Navel Observatory. There isn't even an Australian Naval Observatory. Perhaps Johann Palisa was director of the Austrian Naval Observatory.

Agemegos (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

That was the result of an April 1st vandalism by an anonymous editor that somehow got overlooked. It is fixed now. Thanks for catching it.—RJH (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is diificult to see what about the following passage is likely to be untrue:

"The 2012 film Seeking a Friend for the End of the World refers to an asteroid named Mathilde threatening to impact Earth.^[1] The fictional asteroid is quoted as having a 70 mile diameter, somewhat larger than that of 253 Mathilde, which does not have an orbit that intersects Earth's (see above)."

The director says in interviews that she studied previous asteroid disaster films and stories, and the fictional asteroid has a name that sounds identical to the real Mathilde. The information in the story about the asteroid corresponds as closely to reality as one might expect seeing as this information is conveyed by a brief radio broadcast on a non-news program. It is very rare that real asteroids are referred to in feature films, so the fact that this one appears as such is interesting and non-trivial. The citation is a respectable review in the Boston Globe. The person who keeps removing this entry may think they had a valid reason when they first did so, but that is an unreasonable assertion at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.224.129 (talk • contribs)

"The fictional asteroid has a name that sounds identical to the real Mathilde"... Did the director say something like that? If so, you must cite an interview in which he explicitly says that. If not, that would be your own original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Next, have you read somewhere a comparison between the fictional asteroid from the movie and the real Mathilde? If so, you should cite that. If not, the comparison is a synthesis between two things you have read, which is again not allowed on Wikipedia.

As for the "truth", you should also read WP:Truth. --JorisvS (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm reiterating JorisvS' point a little, but yes, the reference says the asteroid is called "Mathilda", which is not the same as "Mathilde". The two are variants of the same name (Matilda (name)) as used in different countries; hence the similarity. We'll need a reference that confirms that it is the same asteroid. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The film was made in America where nobody is going to use "Mathilde" for long. 253 Matilde is one of the best known asteroids, having been subject of a spacecraft visit, so it is unclear to me why there is so much doubt about the correspondence. This standard of proof and/or directorial intent is not consistent with hundreds of other Wikipedia entries that mention cultural references without citation or direct evidence from the work of art e.g.,

"Comic book: The Apollo Eleven is used as the name of a group of astronauts turned superhero in the Astro City comic book series."

" In the 1998 film Deep Impact Fictional Astronaut, Spurgeon "Fish" Tanner portrayed by Robert Duvall was described at a Presidential Press Conference as the "Last man to walk on the moon" by the President of the United States portrayed by Morgan Freeman."

Be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.224.129 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

All irrelevant. Read the links I have provided. If there are poor things on other Wikipedia articles, that's no reason to lower the standard for other articles. Instead, those poor articles should be improved. --JorisvS (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Both now tagged as needing a citation. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 253 Mathilde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829153207/http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/Pavements/Albedo/ to http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/Pavements/Albedo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The lead paragraph uses the word tumbling, but nothing else in the article hints at tumbling. Clarify? —Antonissimo (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:253 Mathilde HQ.png - Wikimedia Commons - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is bigger, but not obviously better. —Antonissimo (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

why? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You want me to describe in detail what they have in common? —Antonissimo (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

sure??? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This article is not very comprehensive and inconsistent with modern GA-class astronomy articles. This GA was promoted a very long time ago (2007), when quality standards were not as high.

That being said, here's stuff missing from this article:

• Dedicated sections for its orbit, geology, origin. I don't like how everything is shoved into a very broad "Description" section. It's not very organized. For reference, look at the FAs Ceres (dwarf planet) and Makemake, the GAs (84522) 2002 TC302 and 208996 Achlys, and the GA-worthy articles 52246 Donaldjohanson and 1998 KY26.
• Missing info on how Mathilde formed.
• Does not adequately explain how Mathilde got its slow rotation. The article briefly mentions it might be caused by a moon, but contradicts it right after. I'm pretty sure papers have discussed other alternatives that aren't disproven.
  • I see that this 1999 paper mentions how the impact are responsible for Mathilde's slow rotation. This article does not talk about this.
• Looks like only one peer-reviewed paper about Mathilde has been published after 2007. This article is missing this 2025 paper on its internal structure.
• Lack of discussion on the names of Mathilde's surface features. There should be a least some mention of them before recommending the "List of named craters" article.
• Escape velocity unreferenced
• Bad sandwiching issues between image and infobox
• "tumbling" mentioned nonchalantly only in lead, and unaddressed afterward. This issue was pointed in the talk page, but nobody has responded.

I might consider rewriting the entire article. If I do that, I believe it would be more beneficial if this article goes through the GAN review process instead of GA reassessment. People are more interested in reviewing GANs than doing GARs; as a result GARs have very long waiting periods and not very in-depth reviews. For this reason, I believe this article should be demoted. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Delist per the given reasons. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wait a bit, I’ll try to fix the issues. I’m on a vacation with limited WiFi as of tomorrow, and will get back a few weeks later, do I might need some time. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 21:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC) Per comment below. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Nrco0e, @Bgsu98:

Notes:

Tumbling is the same as rotation (I think)

Added information on that the tumbling may be due to impacts

Fixed sandwich _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wikipedian12512:

Tumbling is the same as rotation (I think)

It is not. Tumbling refers to precession or non-principal axis rotation, which involves two or more periods (see 52246 Donaldjohanson which I rewrote recently and is waiting for GA review). I've linked the paper mentioning Mathilde's two tumbling periods in the talk page Talk:253 Mathilde#Tumbling.

I really really would much prefer if you use peer reviewed papers instead of websites (which tend to gloss over and oversimplify details) for getting info about Mathilde. Although many papers are paywalled, you can easily access them via Sci-Hub (sci-hub.ru/[insert DOI link]) or The Wikipedia Library. Ideally, I think this article should be written by a subject-matter expert (like me; also wow I sound pretentious for saying that). Unfortunately I'm busy with 44 Nysa and my motivation for Mathilde is sorta dead. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

If that’s the case, then I’ll strike my statement. Hope you have time to get around to it! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for understanding, have fun with your vacation! :) Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This 2005 paper discovers evidence that Mathilde is tumbling (exhibits non-principal axis rotation) with a primary period of 419 hours and a secondary period of 250 hours. The paper says sub-catastrophic impacts can't change period much, but can impart tumbling if the asteroid was already slowly spinning. The origin of Mathilde's slow rotation may involve YORP spin-down, the rotational obliquity, and the precession of the asteroid's orbital plane. Slowly-rotating asteroids can have chaotically-changing rotation speeds and spin axes. The paper also claims Mathilde is the "largest ultra-slow rotator", but I'm not sure if this still holds today. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, Mathilde's spin pole direction is still unknown. LCDB mentions 2020 and 2021 studies with the "POLE" flag marked as "yes", but I don't see them in the papers. I'll have to dig into their catalog list later... Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply