Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canis Minor/archive1

Canis Minor

Canis Minor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Canis Minor/archive1

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC) + Keilana (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's lookin' pretty darn spiffy. It's had a good workout at Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1 and got a good run at its good article nom too. Thanks all. So, me and Keilana are here and waiting to fix stuff to make it perfickt. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

NB: A wikicup nomination. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by 99of9

• "Canis Minor culminates (reaches its highest point in the sky) each year at 9 p.m. on 16 April." The source looks like it has chosen 9pm as an arbitrary time you might want to look for stars, and then found the day on which it will culminate at that time. So I guess there's nothing amazingly special about this date, since the 10pm answer would be different. --99of9 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Also this seems to contradict the infobox which says "Best visible at 21:00 (9 p.m.) during the month of March.". --99of9 (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Culmination times are kind of arbitrary, because it reaches a high point every sidereal day. I'm not sure that anything more than the "best visible" time in the infobox needs to be included, to be honest. Cas, can you weigh in on this? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of something about when it culminates or is best visible - it is arbitrary which value - midnight is often used but it is late for kids doing astronomy which is I guess why 9PM is used. I have no idea why the infobox says what it says. I will look for some more sources on the issue Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Ian Ridpath and Wil Tirion's Monthly Sky Guide has good info on what's visible when. I have access to it so I can take a look at some point in th next couple days. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I found an hour for the library and Monthly Sky Guide says it's most prominent in mid-February at 10 PM (aka 9 PM in late February & early March). It doesn't say much more about CMi other than implying that it's boring. If you think that's an ok standard, I can put them prominence in (from pp.21-22, 7th ed., ISBN 978-0-521-68435-4). If not, I can keep looking. Let me know what you think. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

that sounds good to add. Most folks think CMi is pretty boring :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Update - have added best viewing months in evening sky, and corrected bodgy web ref (I think the site must have been hacked..) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd love a (clickable?) map which used the same names as you've used (because there are so many it's hard to keep track of them all). For example, on File:Canis Minor IAU.svg I can't see which star is HD 66141. --99of9 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Will play around with an image editor later. Made this so far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you keep it in SVG (I recommend Inkscape), it's arbitrarily resizeable and others will be able to improve on it or translate it more easily. But this isn't Commons, so I won't count this against the candidate :). --99of9 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the notation right, the text also refers to number 8, which is not labelled. Also it would help to mark the positions of the dim stars you discuss in the lead which aren't on the diagram (e.g. Luyten's, NGC 2359, Canis-Minorids). Maybe in a different colour if they're not visible to the eye.--99of9 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right - they are good things to add. Will see what I can add via sourcing. I am a neophyte with image files but have a look at inkscape and see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not much of a star guy, but "a small constellation in the northern hemisphere's winter sky" and "The Wardaman people of the Northern Territory in Australia gave Procyon and Gomeisa the names" don't seem to make much sense together. I take it this constellation is not *only* in the northern hemisphere's sky? --99of9 (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's true. It's technically in the southern sky, below the celestial equator, but it appears in the southern portion of the sky during Northern Hemisphere winter. I've tried to gloss that better in the text. I rewrote that a bit, does it make more sense to you now? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I still think discussion of the Southern Hemisphere should at least match the one mention of the fleeting appearance in the Northern. For example, is it visible all year in the Southern? --99of9 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

given it lies on the celestial equator, it won't be visible all the time from anywhere populous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But visible once a day all year from most of the southern hemisphere? --99of9 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

aaah no. they go backwards, so visible in mid-evening over Jan/March...then earlier and then disappearign and then reappearing in morning sky mid year. Trying to find a ref for reappearing in early morning sky to add. Evening bit added. Mid year period where it sets at sunset and reappears before dawn added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• The lead says "The 11 Canis-Minorids are a meteor shower". In this it calls them "II Canis-Minorids". --99of9 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a typo/formatting error. Showers are named either for their constellation or nearest star (hence it is "11" and not "II"). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

done}} OK, I see it was correct on the PDF scan of the original 1970 paper. I've fixed your citation #59. --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Done" template removed, please see WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (CC), sources and authors provided. Quick comment:

• I doubt, that the simple photo and/or scan of Bode's Uranographia in File:Cmi.jpg creates a new copyright, but the original work would be PD-old, so it's OK either way. GermanJoe (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Support and comments Just two queries

• and the next closest stellar neighbour to our solar system after Procyon — is that referring to the stars of the constellation, or of all the stars?
• π3 and π4 Orionis and Zeta and Xi Orionis'' — Not clear why we have the Greek symbols for the first two, rather than spelt-out "Pi" to concur with other star names Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, that was my fault, I decided that Pi3 looked weird for whatever reason and then wandered off for a moment, came back, and typed Zeta and Xi. I've typed out both Pis now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• FN3: what kind of source is this?

a very old book..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• FN9: formatting
  • Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• FN12 claims to have an invalid ISBN
• Compare FNs 13 and 19. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I fixed what you meant on 13 and 19. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support there were minor issues I mentioned in the GA nomination. After re-reviewing I am satsfied. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)