From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Tucana is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Astronomy / Constellations  (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Tucana is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Constellations taskforce, which collaborates on articles related to the constellations.

Deep Sky Objects[edit]

The first sentence of this section doesn't make sense. In previous versions the "galaxy" referred to was the Small Magellanic Cloud, which was mentioned just prior to it. VirtualDave 20:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualDave (talkcontribs)

Whoops. Will rejig. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs both have the statement "it is a Shapley Class III cluster, which means...". In the second paragraph you could probably just say something like "It is also a Shapley class III cluster."VirtualDave 10:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualDave (talkcontribs)

Well spotted - my eyes had missed that one on scanning - trimmed....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tucana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 14:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be conducting this GA review. Please be patient! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

ok, cool -take your time ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is easily a good article. I made about a half-dozen minor edits to spelling, grammar, linking, etc. I don't see anything else that sticks out which needs work to meet the GA criteria. Good job, and congratulations! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):


Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

Slip of the pen?[edit]

" Pavo first appeared on a 35-cm (14 in) diameter celestial globe published in 159..." Is Pavo a slip for Tucana?==Wetman (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

yup. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Southern Birds?[edit]

"The constellations Tucana, Grus, Phoenix and Pavo are collectively known as the Southern Birds." By whom? Do you have a reference for this statement? (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

All lead statements are repeated in the body of the text (where they are supported by a source) In this case, it is here. I remember this phrase from when I was a kid too. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually I meant to say "other than by Patrick Moore". This seems to be a Patrickism rather than a general term. (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure - yes my book when I was about six years old was a book by him....will take an online snoop around. If no-one else then I will add that it is a Patrickism....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is Apus not included in this list? AstroLynx (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Good question - maybe due to doubts about its status and confusion with Apis "Bee" or maybe it's just too faint? (the others have at least some fairly bright stars....?) Not sure......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Very likely a Patrickism. I had never heard the phrase until I saw it in Wikipedia, so I'd say it is non-standard usage. Skeptic2 (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)