Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star

Star

Prior FAC attempts: archive1, archive2

This article is about a core concept in astronomy. It has undergone multiple PR's and all of the issues raised during the last FAC have been addressed. Since the last FAC this page has undergone some growth and the organization of two of the sections have been enhanced. I believe it is of FA quality. Please take a look and let me know if you agree. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object
• First sentence: A star is ... gravity and, unlike a planet, ... to sustain nuclear fusion in a very dense, hot core region. Bad sentence structure. Don't use comparisons or negative phrases in the lead (unlike)
  • Ah the joys of collaborative edits. That was actually correct at one point before somebody decided to edit it into the current form. It appears to have been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• (HR-diagram)... lay people will not know what this is unless they click on it (causing a fork in reading). Avoid using in lead as the context needs to be explained to establish understanding.
  • "A Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HR-diagram) shows the pattern of the temperature of stars against their absolute magnitude..." Isn't this self-explanatory? I reordered the sentence slightly to make it clearer. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• 1.1 & 3.3.1 are single subsections. Considered bad style to have a single subsection in almost all style guides.
  • The manual of style states to "use sub-headings if the section becomes a bit long". I see nothing in there about it being bad style to have single subsections, and the section breaks seem appropriate. Could you clarify? — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • About the sectioning: I can't quote a style guide off hand, but in all my work editing over the years, I have come across the rule that to have a sub section, you must have at least two subsections. The text before the first subsection becomes the overview of the following sections. Take a look at any printer manual or magazine article.
• I don't see the lead summarizing the article.
  • Yes that's somewhat true. I think it focuses on key points. But I added in a couple of additional paragraphs. Hopefully that will be sufficient. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Early astronomers such as Tycho Brahe
  • Fixed. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Observation history contains mostly western science viewpoints. In 1584 Giordano Bruno suggested that the stars were actually other suns, and may have Earth-like -- has this never been proposed before?
  • The focus of the article is on the scientific aspects of the stars. Unfortunately most the history of the telescopic observation of the stars is from a western viewpoint. So I regard a certain bias in that aspect as a necessity from the 1600's onward. I added in Democritus and Epicurus, two early Greek philosophers who suggested the idea of other worlds. Also western, "unfortunately". :-) — RJH (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• seeing variability -- I've just started to read the article and I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
  • I attempted to clarify this. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• 225 km/s -- Mos for units not followed. Use the non-breaking space
  • Mos? Please clarify your abbr. Ah, okay: mos = Manual of style. Mos states to use SI units. "km/s" is SI units. I added npsp's and linked the units. — RJH (talk)
• Article size is large. Suggest a summary: =Formation and evolution= can and should be summarized keeping the technical details in sub articles
  • The "formation and evolution" section is a summary, at least to me. Unfortunately the FA guidelines require completeness, and this is a large topic. I am reluctant to implement this suggestion as this is a core element of the article. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately the FA guidelines require completeness, and this is a large topic – sadly, most FAC editors get stuck with this point. See #4 of WP:WIAFA. (staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail).
      • By moving extraneous content here to the sub article, and summarizing that content here, you can get the daughter article featured with a little extra work. It's referenced after all :)
• .gif image found. Convert to .png
  • I am unclear why this is the basis for an objection. Gif files are a well-known format that is supported by all browsers. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format states that static diagrams should be in the .png format. PS I'm happy that some of the diagrams are svg. Excellent work!
• I don't see an absolute need of keeping mathematical figures for =Radiation= & Nuclear fusion reaction pathways. The two sections can be summarized further, and details moved to sub articles. Since this is a general topic, the page should be reader friendly to people not familiar with trignometery.
  • I'm going to wait and see if others object to this. For now I think the formulae are relevant and can be kept on the basis of precedent: black hole, photon, roche limit and speed of light.
    • Well not all articles are the same. Roche limit for example would be more tuned for a person with a science background reading it. Afterall you need a knowedge of trignometry to calculate it. The formulae are currently essential as it is used in context, but to remove it you would have to rewrite it so that the need for the formulae is obviated.
• Main article: main sequence -- should be Sentence case: (Main sequence)
  • Why? It's all one sentence. Please clarify. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • {Main article} clarification: The first letter of the linked article should be capitalized. (star formation --> Star formation; Stellar evolution). So that this is consistent with the usage in other articles on wikipedia. Regards.
• Use − to mark out the minus sign
• ...to our eyes, only because it is merely 8.6 light-years away from us, while Canopus is much further away from us at 310 light-years. --> "...to the eye only because Sirius (8.6 light years) is much closer to earth than Canopus (310 light years). (Don't use our)
• Context needed for many terms. I'll give you one example: As the cloud collapses, individual Bok globules form... --> ... as the cloud collapses, dark clouds of dense dust and gas called Bok globules form...

I don't have time to check on all the points. If all are taken care off, please strike my objection off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.4.162 (talk)

Thanks for your review. As I noted above I have a some issues with a few of your objections, so I'm going to hold off on some of the suggested changes to see what consensus is reached. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Support, with some qualifications. Re anons points, the use of a comparison is appropriate here because it's central to the definition. To define a star is to distinguish it from a planet.

I agree with the anon. The article on Definition states that you define something by stating the essential properties of the thing being defined. It not being a planet is not an essential property. I've removed the "unlike a planet" due to this.Harryboyles 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The formation section does appear long given the sub-articles, but this article is better than the subs, after a glance at them. Don't compress this one, until you're sure those are in order. Abundance and redundancy is preferable to a lack of coverage.

• The lead is insufficient, as it only summarizes evolution. Consider a short para on characteristics, another on classification, and at least a sentence devoted to observation history.
  • I've added two more paragraphs. If it were any longer I think people might complain about excessive length of the introduction. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Writing: some excess language at the clause level, but this is well-written.
  • If there is excess language, some judicious cleanup would be most welcome. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job! Marskell 10:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The lead sentence says that a star is "a massive, compact body...". Massive and compact seem contradictory words and a bit ambiguous. Harryboyles 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it the word "massive" that's ambiguous? Perhaps "enormous" would serve? Massive implies dimension, while compact is a measure of density. (A galaxy is enormous but non-compact; a neutron star is relatively small, but highly compact.) — RJH (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps change it to "massive, dense" or something similar? Harryboyles 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The density of a star is variable, depending on either the radius and the state of evolution. Using "dense" would be inappropriate. I think "compact" captures the concept more accurately. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • In everyday (non-scientific) usage, compact means (or at least strongly implies) small, not dense. For example, I expect a "compact digital camera" to fit in my pocket, not to meet some arbitrary space utilization percentage. Thus, it would be easy to see this as a contradiction in terms (massive, compact). Also, I don't see why you say "compact is a measure of density" but then say that "the density of a star is variable", and thus conclude that "compact" is a better term to use than "dense". Even if used as a term of density, "compact" implies high density, just as "dense" does. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Merriam-Webster: "1: predominantly formed or filled; 2a: having a dense structure or parts or units closely packed or joined."[1] The word is perfectly fine as used here. Marskell 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, I still disagree, but in any case why not simply say "dense", since that's apparently what "compact" means anyway? Ambiguity is evil. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question There seem to be a lot of multiple wikilinks. Is it necessary to link all of them so many times? Jay32183 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I always liked having a relevant link close at hand, but no probably not. Is there a program somewhere that will search for duplicate links? — RJH (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Auto Wiki Browser will find them. I'd have done it when I viewed it for the simple spell check, but I wasn't sure what astronomers considered necessary. I think the typical view arcoss wikipedia is that only complete dates need to be, and that's so date formatting works. If you want to get rid of all of the multiples or have a list of those you wish to keep, I can make all of the duplicates so it only has the first instance. Jay32183 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • If you have a means to automatically eliminate the duplicates, that would be most appreciated. The extra links can always be added back in where they are most needed. Otherwise it would be an almost herculean task to check and compare every link. In fact it would be beneficial if WP had a tool that would perform the task of finding duplicate links on a page. — RJH (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I have reduced all the duplicates to only their first use. This reduced the overall number of wikilinks to 225. Jay32183 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you! Personally I really dislike having to search through an article for a link I want. But the majority deems otherwise, apparently. :-) — RJH (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro is improved. Good job.

Another editor pointed out that one difficulty with this page is the introduction of terms without an explanation. Having dozens of paranthetical asides can make for a clunky ready, but perhaps someone can go through and at least add an adjective or two based on the sub-article.

For instance "individual conglomerations known as Bok globules" --> "individual conglomerations of dense dust and gas known as Bok globules". This won't overburden the writing too much and will make the page more user-friendly. Marskell 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've done quite a bit of editing to try and address those concerns. Some of the heavier material has been moved to the stellar evolution page, for example. I also moved most of the formulae elsewhere, but I left the nuclear reactions in place for now. I'm not expecting this FAC to succeed at this point, and it's not clear to me that the article has a chance of becoming significantly improved. So time for me to move on. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Just a query: "Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, the star expands to becomes a red giant,..". It's not my area, but I had a vague idea that, depending on its pre-existing size, a red giant was only one of three options here. I'm probably wrong, though. Tony 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • In fact, our page on red giants suggests that red dwarfs may not be large enough to undergo the expansion. If so, even "most stars" would be innappropriate as most stars are red dwarfs. That will always be speculative though, because no red dwarf has yet completed its lifecycle. The third option would be a supernova. I'll try and tweak that if RJH doesn't. Marskell 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support though I'd rather not see this nomination oscillate between active and withdrawn anymore. My only suggestion would be to include an example of an HR diagram - I know they can be large, but a small one would be useful, because it's discussed a lot but readers have to click the link to see what it is. (Also, "massive and compact" is in no way contradictory; leave that one alone.) Opabinia regalis 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support (Mike Peel 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)), with a few caveats that I'd like to see fixed:

• A fair few of the references have (English) next to them - this is superfluous, as it is normally assumed that the references are in english unless a tag saying otherwise is present.
• All dates should be of the form 13 October 2006 (or October 13, 2006) - namely, wikilinked. Some of the dates in the references aren't.
• "However, since the lifespan of such stars is greater than the current age of the universe (13.7 billion years), no black dwarfs exist yet." - how can you be definite that they don't exist? I'd refine that to say that it is expected that no black dwarfs exist, and possibly mention that it would be difficult to detect them due to their low / non-existent emissions. A reference would also be nice here.
• The article should have more pictures. As said by someone else above, a H-R diagram would be a good idea. I'd also consider adding a segment of a spectra of a star, and at least one decent one of the sun - there's plenty to choose from on Sun.

Mike Peel 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)