Since the last FAC (where issues raised included prose and sourcing of Chinese section), the Chinese section has been sourced with better sources and the prose copyedited by two editors. Hopefully it flows better this time folks. Have at it - the two of us will try to deal with concerns promptly. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
From "History and mythology", subsection "In non-Western astronomy", paragaph 1: "The Double Cluster, h and χ Persei." Is the latter the Greek symbol Chi? Earlier in the paragraph, Greek symbols were spelt out in English.Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
well spotted, we must have missed that one. Fixed now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I presume that "h" is accurate? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. When they ran out of greek letters, they started on lowercase roman letters. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
From "Notable features", subsection "Stars", paragraph 1: "These two are separated by only 5% the distance between the Earth and Sun.... The tertiary component... is located on average 2.69 astronomical units (AU) from the other two stars." I had to click the link to "astronomical units" to find out the difference between these two distances. Why not use astronomical units for the first measurement?Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
annoyingly, finding a ref for the distance in AU has proven tricky, so left it as a percentage (for which we could supply a source) so that it was a more familiar figure for the reader. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, since 1 AU is 100% of the distance from the Earth to the Sun (I don't think this would need a cite, as it's common knowledge really), could we just do a little math and convert both to either percent or AU? I personally don't consider that WP:OR, since it's just math. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
From "Notable features", subsection "Stars", paragraph 4: "If the system does indeed contain a black hole, it would be the smallest black hole ever recorded as of 2003." Is there an update on this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
got some now - not surprisingly, creates more mystery (I didn't add this in the first place) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Addition of the new sentence is an improvement. However retaining "as of 2003" still makes the statement seem outdated. Given that there is no new source to explicitly state an update, how would you feel about deleting "as of 2003"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
From "Notable features", subsection "Stars", paragraph 4: "It faded to 13th magnitude around 30 years after its peak brightness." What does "13th magnitude" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I definitely prefer the second. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I agree with you - examples make it more accessible. changed to second one Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The table itself does not state what "13th magnitude" means. While I understand what "apparent magnitude" means, I had to read the text here (your first link) to understand what "13th magnitude" means. Would it be reasonable to say "magnitude 13" or "about magnitude 13" instead of "13th magnitude"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
From "Notable features", subsection "Stars", paragraph 6: "The Double Cluster contains three even larger stars; S, RS, and SU Persei—all of which are semiregular pulsating M-type supergiants with radii of above 700 solar radii." How about "The Double Cluster contains three even larger stars, each over 700 solar radii: S, RS, and SU Persei are all semiregular pulsating M-type supergiants." Also, should "Double Cluster" be capitalized? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Named astronomical objects are capitalized - so yes it should be capitalized. changed sentence as suggested Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
From "Notable features", subsection "Deep-sky objects", paragraph 2: "The clusters are both distinct from their star field and are clearly concentrated at their centers." Do the two clusters share a single star field, or does each cluster have its own star field? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The star field is just the background of stars that one sees around them - changed to " from the surrounding star field " if that helps (?) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
From "Notable features", subsection "Deep-sky objects", paragraph 4: "It is very difficult to observe visually because its low surface brightness makes it appear dimmer than comparable objects." What are "comparable objects" in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It means from most other emission nebulae. Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
From "Notable features", subsection "Deep-sky objects", last paragraph: "These bubbles create sound waves that travel through the Perseus Cluster, sounding a B flat 57 octaves below middle C." I'm not convinced that this statement is worthy of an encyclopedic article, but this is not a strong opinion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't have strong opinions either way. Would it help to drop the second clause of the sentence, which seems like it might be undue weight on this? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I remember the quote about the sound note when it came out as being pretty notable (might be in Guiness Book of Records IIRC), and i think it helps greatly to make the prose more engaging. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
StringTheory11, it certainly would help to delete the second clause. Anyway, let's leave it for the time being. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is an excellent article, nicely illustrated and supported with good-quality references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
From "Notable features" > "Stars" > paragraph 1: "...it was called Rosh ha Satan ("Satan's Head") by the Hebrew people, to whom it represented Lilith." (Emphasis mine) This sentence needs to referenced (and probably can be, see below) and the emphasized portions need fixing. My analysis:
The corresponding passage in article Algol has: "In Hebrew folklore, Algol was called Rōsh ha Sāṭān or "Satan's Head", as stated by Edmund Chilmead, who called it "Divels head" or Rosch hassatan. A Latin name for Algol from the 16th century was Caput Larvae or "the Spectre's Head". Algol was also linked with "Lilith"." (The Latin phrase interpolated between two Jewish beliefs is rather odd, and is ordered differently in the source.)
The source cited is Allen (1899) from whom I quote the relevant passage: "The Hebrews knew Algol as Rōsh ha Sāṭān, Satan's Head, Chilmead's Rosch hassatan, the Divels head; but also as Līlīth, Adam's legendary first wife..." This could be a reference to cite in this article as well.
However, I'm having difficulty finding the source in Chilmead's writings; I've checked chapters 9 through 11 (those relevant to Jewish astrological beliefs) of Unheard-of Curiosities (which seems to be the work of Chilmead used by Allen); so far no success.
The term Hebrew, in any case, is problematic. If the ancient Hebrew people is meant, Chilmead and Gaffarel are not reliable sources for their beliefs; if Gaffarel contemporaries were meant, the term to use is "Jewish people" while "Hebrew" is antiquated.
Despite Allen's use of Chilmead, a better source is called for in a modern work. Searching Hebrew sources, I find that ראש השטןRosh ha-Satan was seems to be the medieval Hebrew name for Algol or Medusa (Perseus is called נושא ראש השטןNose Rosh ha-Satan "Bearer of Satan's head") but I cannot find any reliable source stating that Algol was connected to Lilith.
Yes, I only like to use Allen where it is straightforward really - his writings have been criticised by subsequent researchers. Aren't there any sources in Hebrew discussing star/constellation beliefs/folklore? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll write a detailed reply later—some information you may find useful—I'm just busy now. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - we've got some other stuff to sort below too. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
As you use Allen as a source for unremarkable claims, let me analyze how plausible the "Satan's head" and "Lilith" claims are. (Unfortunately I'm no expert on medieval and early modern Jewish astronomy, and I've found nothing in sources on Jewish folklore, so this is the best I can do:)
"Satan's head": Plausibility: High. Though I haven't found any sources that give the Hebrew names of individual stars, Algol's can be inferred: sources consistently list a constellation called "The Bearer of Satan's Head" between "The Woman Sitting on a Chair" and "The Shepherd with Reins in his Hand". If Perseus is the "bearer", then Algol is "Satan's head". Also, Jewish astronomical are ultimately translated from Arabic, where Perseus is hamil ra's al-ghul "bearer of the demon's head" and Algol is ra's al-ghūl "the demon's head". Sources that name Algol as Rosh ha-Satan specifically, as found at Google Books, are mostly based on Allen and none predate Chilmead. This 1836 source attributes the same claim to a "Commentary on Alfraganus" and Hyde's commentary on Ulugh-Beigh but I cannot find either book scanned online to check.
"Lilith" Plausibility: Low. The term Lilith usually refers to She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, which is how Allen understood it here. It seems distinctly out of character for Jewish astronomers to assign her a starl; rationalists (which most medieval Jewish astronomers were) did not believe in the existence of demons, kabbalists, though they considered her the second most evil entity in the universe, ranked her as a demon, not an angel, which seems the necessary rank to earn a star. It is possible that the word lilith is used here in its rarer sense of "female demon" in general, and thus a rough equivalent of Medusa, but this is not likely historically. All the sources I can find cite Chilmead or Allen.
My suggestion: either replace the problematic phrase (in article Algol too) with "it was called Rosh ha Satan ("Satan's Head") by the Jewish astronomers", with no mention of Lilith, or omit the phrase entirely: even if true, there really is nothing remarkable about the Hebrew name, except that the Arabic term for "demon" was translated as "Satan". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 06:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim usual sound effort, but a couple of queries Jimfbleak -talk to me? 08:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
who was so ugly that every living creature who gazed upon her turned to stone—She may have been ugly, but even your source doesn't say that it was that which turn people to stone. Depending what you read, it was the evil/terror/supernatural power of her eyes that did the business
they are small asterism - "subconstellations" as it were. The best would be to have some mention of one of the Chinese_astronomy page or one of its subpages. Just trying to find a decent definition to write up Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added a see also link to chinese astronomy, as well as a short definition of paranatellon. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
"asterism" is an equally technical word, unlinked and unexplained, but I've added a link myself which I think solves the problem Jimfbleak -talk to me? 07:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The stars are not visible to the naked eye; SU Persei, the brightest of the three, has an apparent magnitude of only 7.9 and thus is only visible through binoculars.—doesn't make sense as written, it can be seen through a telescope too. Best to lose both the "only"s
I noticed that this is in AE, Cas's previous constellation have been in BE. Is there a standard variety of English for constellations?
no - Stringtheory11 did the bulk of the early buffing. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The reason it's in AE is because I was the one who started work on the article first, so it was already in AE when Casliber came along, so we're just following WP:SPELLING. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Assuming you are happy with my edit to the paranatellon section (see further comment above), I have no other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak -talk to me? 07:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Just glancing at the lead I don't think it is quite detailed enough to effectively summarize the article. It should be both informative and concise and I think you've missed out some important details. I think "Perseus is bordered by Aries and Taurus to the south, Auriga to the east, Camelopardalis and Cassiopea to the north, and Andromeda and Triangulum to the west" for a start should be mentioned in the lead. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I've tinkered with the lead a little bit; how do you think it is now? StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's better, thanks. I'll give it a read later but in glancing I think it's come quite far since I last looked at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the first things I'd want to know if how far is it from Earth. Perhaps move "The constellation gives its name to the Perseus Cluster (Abell 426), a massive galaxy cluster located 250 million light-years from Earth." nearer the top?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
But that's only that galaxy cluster, which is much further than (and unrelated to) the stars and things that make up what we see in the sky. The constellation areas serve as grids or addresses for all stuff that lies within their borders from Earth. The overall way I lay out these articles is all the visible stars and nebulae, then moving further out to nearby and then remote galaxies etc. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts pretty much align with Casliber's. I think that providing this information in the lead would be undue weight towards a relatively minor aspect of the constellation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but don't you think the distance from earth is relevant to inform the reader in the lead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, as of now the distance of the Perseus Cluster is cited in the lead. I am ok with it there, I just wouldn't move the sentence any further up. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Support: I applied a few fixes, but overall it's in good condition. Note that NGC 1260 is a member of the Perseus Cluster; the matching distances give this away but I confirmed it independently. If you would, please place the two in juxtaposition. Praemonitus (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Rejigged as requested. Agree it helps with the flow Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Cautious support. I think this looks better now (I had concerns re Chinese astronomy last time). The Schlegel reference is extremely old; are we confident that more modern scholarship has not led to any reinterpretation or better understanding of how the Chinese constellations are to be interpreted? The last FAC i think ironed out prose issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't think there's any modern scholarship that has changed our views on this, but if anyone finds something (I already took a look at Google Scholar, so I'm not confident), then feel free to add it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I really trawled thru stuff - it is identified as the definitive work by others and has been summarised by Staal, so yeah it seems to be it Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Source review -- I'm sure I haven't been as thorough as Nikki or Brian but we can't keep this one open forever...
Inconsistency in page-range formatting, e.g. 277–88 in FN32 and 579–592 in FN53. Personally I prefer the latter style although I don't think there's a law against the former...
funny - I've always used last two digits - can't remember where the rule came from now. inconsistencies where two of us are adding. streamlined now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)