Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phoenix (constellation)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Phoenix (constellation)[edit]

Phoenix (constellation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this has come together nicely - I find constellations hard to make engaging because of their innate listiness, but it got a good review from Hamiltonstone at GAN and I figure a big shove in the right direction. Anything outstanding should be imminently fixable. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now...Comments from PumpkinSky
Refs 1,2,3 don't use the publisher parameter.
The retrieve date for the NED ref is not in the same format as other retrieve dates.
Image File:Constellation Phoenix.jpg has a no-categories tag on Commons. Could that be taken care of?
There are several books from Cambridge University Press. All but the one in ref 51 list the location. See ref 52. PumpkinSky talk 23:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
all done - thanks for doing the cats for the image Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto

A nice little article and easy to read, despite the blindingly scientific subject matter. I offer my comments for you to embrace, consider or disregard:

  • I think the opening sentence in the History section maybe a bit too long and feels slightly awkward without a pause of some kind. "Phoenix was the largest of the twelve constellations established by Petrus Plancius from the observations of Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser and Frederick de Houtman. It first appeared on a 35-cm diameter celestial globe published in 1597 (or 1598) in Amsterdam by Plancius with Jodocus Hondius." – Maybe?
sentence split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Uranometria of 1603. De Houtman included it in his southern star catalog of 1603..." – Is there anyway of avoiding the repetition of the year?
changed to "the same year" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to link Australia? Much too well known to require one I think. I would be inclined to say the same for South Africa too.
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an OVERLINK to "Gamma Phoenicis", three paragraphs down in the Stars section.
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know either small case or capitalisation are okay with "earth", but is there a reason why we capitalise "Saturn" and "Jupiter" and not the earlier mention of "earth"?
nope - earth capitalised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not pushing for this (and by no-means obligatory), but could the refs be split into two columns, purely for asthetical reasons?

CassiantoTalk 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

references in two columns now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per above resolved comments. A nice little article congratulations. -- CassiantoTalk 05:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone. I undertook the GA review, and then made some comments post-review in response to which Casliber incorporated changes.

  • "...brown dwarfs are objects of mass intermediate between large planets and the smallest stars that are not massive enough to perform hydrogen fusion". Just checking - there is such a thing as a star that lacks the mass for hydrogen fusion? I thought that was the defining feature of a star...? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I think brown dwarfs are technically substellar objects...here is a straightforward definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it needed a copyedit - as written it sounded as though it was the smallest stars that lacked the mass for fusion. Feel free to tweak further - i feel some improvement could be made to the idea of "performing" fusion, but have not as yet come up with it. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from - actually some brown dwarfs are maybe smaller than planets, so it has to be massive. I tried this or alternatively it could be "brown dwarfs are objects whose mass is greater than that of planets, but insufficient for hydrogen fusion characteristic of stars to occur." - bastard sentence really.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yes it was a troublesome sentence. I'm happy with your last solution. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • charted and gave the brighter stars their Bayer designations — clunky, I think, something like charted the brighter stars and gave their Bayer designations
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • declination, right ascension. — link at first occurrence
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • boasts nine star systems with planets, and the recently discovered Phoenix Cluster—one of the largest objects in the universe— I'm not convinced by that comma
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One name of the brightest star Alpha Phoenicis... after 1800 for the name of the constellation.[4]— should be possible to avoid repeat of "name"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 77 light years distant from Earth, orbited by a secondary object—"and" instead of comma?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has around 85% of the mass of the Sun, —"It" is separated from its intended referent by an intervening sentence
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • hot jupiter-like planet—cap Jupiter
capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref38 has a Lua query
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten this, supporting belatedly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: thank you for addressing my concerns. Praemonitus (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Praemonitus: it's a decent article, but I have some concerns that I would like to see addressed before providing support.
  • "Phoenix, Grus, Pavo and Tucana, are known as the Southern Birds": I think this sentence should clarify that these are all constellations. Thus: "The constellations Phoenix, ..."
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...generally invisible to anyone living north...": I would prefer that you not use the word 'invisible' here as it implies something other than the intent. Perhaps say something like 'lies below the horizon'.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...it has two other dimmer components visible only with a telescope, of apparent magnitude of 7.2 and 8.2 at a distance of 0.8 and 6.4 arcseconds from the main star respectively": I'm very skeptical about the truth of this statement, and suspect that an editor has conflated a pair of visual companions into a four-star system. Hence, please either provide a citation or remove it as pure fiction.
looked around - bugger knows where that has come from actually. Everywhere else calls it a triple only - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I think I found the source for the statement about it being a four-star system: Clausen, Gyldenkerne & Grønbech (1976), p. 209: "...since all four stars with high probability constitutes a physically bound system...". Sorry for doubting it. Praemonitus (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Navigating SIMBAD is peculiar - if I look at the children of Zeta Phe on SIMBAD, I get RMK 2AB (the main two stars) and RMK 2C (the third), but then I look at PMSC 01042-5546 it lists children like this am confused....and why would no-one mention it since? SIMBAD seems to see it as a triple as does Kaler...or am I missing something Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
update - added a minor note about study and fourth star - it is alot of detail for a constellation article so I think more detail should be on the daughter page (Zeta Phoenicis) maybe Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty recent reference, Zasche & Wolf (2007), lists the fourth star as an astrometric component. They also list a period of 261 years for the third component. That sounds like its definitely a triple and potentially a four star system, so I think the article is okay. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Psi Phoenicis... and four times the mass, of our sun": the reference does not list the mass. Neilson and Lester (2008) give it an estimated 0.85 solar masses.[2]
The source does on a graphic illustration two pages on....but I'll take a Peer-reviewed journal over it, so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...of the metal that the Sun...": should clarify the meaning of 'metal' here in the astronomical sense.
linked to Metallicity now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...does not lie on the Milky Way...": is this trying to say '...does not lie on the galactic plane of the Milky Way...'?
  • "Located near the galaxy ESO 243-49 is HLX-1, an intermediate-mass black hole—the first one of its kind identified": How near? This is too vague.
  • A few issues with the references:
    • There are some inconsistencies in how the citation authors are presented. In particular "Ian Ridpath" and "Robert Burnham, Jr." are not shown in the same "Last, First MI" layout of the other references.
    • Should "pp. 387=88" be using a hyphen?
    • Hellier et al (2009-08-27) uses an 'et al' in the author list. Some citations with longer lists of authors do not use 'et al'. Also, the date format for the Hellier reference is inconsistent with other examples.
    • Since you are linking some author names, please also link "Kaler, Jim", "Robert Burnham, Jr.", "Levy, David H.", and "Tirion, Wil".
    • Waugh (15 February 2012) should have an access date.

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Phoenix_(constellation)/archive1&oldid=1146681817"