Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Telescopium/archive1

Telescopium

Telescopium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Telescopium/archive1

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the latest in a number of constellation articles improved to GA/FA status. It got good feedback at Talk:Telescopium/GA1, but quiet Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Telescopium/archive1. Mike Peel (talk · contribs) (an astronomer) has given some feedback on the talk page, which I have followed. Anyway, have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

Today I'm thankful for a consistent stream of interesting FAs in subjects I wouldn't normally be tuned into. Expect comments by sometime tomorrow; ping me if I don't get around to it. Tezero (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I split the single paragraph in history; rework or revert if you think I did it wrong or, for some reason, shouldn't have split it at all.

that's fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• "A small constellation" - By what metric? Number of stars? Number of lightyears separating the farthest stars within it? Ostensible "area" from Earth's perspective? Actual "area" as the sum of a series of triangles drawn among the member stars?

constellations are 2D areas of sky, covering the star patterns plus a defined territory around them. "Small" means a small percentage of the area of the celestial sky compared with larger constellations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• How many stars are in Telescopium? If no specific number is available, how many are estimated?

good question - depends on how you define it, with more powerful telescopes, all constellations have millions of stars. Have added how many stars are visible to the unaided eye in good viewing (urban/rural border area to mag 6.5) to give context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Touche. I was talking about the stars that defined it, though, though perhaps I wasn't reading carefully enough. Tezero (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• The centaur in the old star chart makes me think: I'm sure Telescopium is too recent a discovery to be associated with any kind of folklore or heavenly symbolism, but are any of its member stars? I mean, if you don't think this'd be straying from the topic of the article - it just might help if a bit of real-world context, as it were, were given.

It's a good thought, but the stars are too faint to have attracted attention..I've looked.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• "spectral class K" - What's a spectral class? At the very least link this, but ideally you might give context as to what this means, perhaps by listing a few other things that are of spectral class K.

they are described as orange giants (orange stars = class K). Can't give examples as no source does that so it'd be sort of OR. I've linked it now - giant star is also linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• "127 light years distant" - Distant from what? Also, this is kind of an odd way to begin a sentence.

from us. added now. changed start of sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite tired right now, so I'll have to sign off for the night. I'll be back with more, though. Tezero (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the input to date - much apprecaited Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, sorry, forgot all about this. Anyway:

• "Epsilon Telescopii is another double star, though this time a true binary system" - ???. Even if the reader could be expected to know what a binary system is, I don't see the context for bringing this fact up.

aah yes, in an older version of the article I think this came right after Delta (which is an optical double) - now it is not contrastive so reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Also, in both that instance and a later one, "this time" is strange wording.

see previous - both removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• "One theory of its origin is that it is the result of a merger between a helium- and a carbon-oxygen white dwarf. If the combined mass does not exceed the Chandrasekhar limit, the former will accrete onto the latter star and ignite to form a supergiant. Later this will become an extreme helium star before cooling to become a white dwarf." - Relevance? This level of detail isn't given for the other stars.

It's an unusual way for a star to form, so detail is interesting (I thought). Also makes article less listy. If above the Chandrasekhar limit, the object would detonate as a supernova. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• "RR Telescopii, also designated Nova Telescopii 1948, often called a slow nova is now classified as a symbiotic nova system" - restructure/alter somehow, like "While RR Telescopii ... is often called a slow nova, it is now classified ..."

• Done this one myself. Tezero (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• White dwarf is linked twice in one paragraph, even though it's referenced several times earlier without any link at all.

whoops! fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• "slightly (1.1 to 1.3 times) as massive as the Sun" - You mean "slightly more massive than the Sun", or "about as massive as the Sun"?

the former. fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• "This is an unusual distance from the star" - Unusually high or low? Also, this could be worded a little more clearly, e.g. "This is an unusually high/low distance for the brown dwarf to be from HD 191760".

low/close - clarified now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• "45000 light-years distant" - Should probably use a comma, and is this in relation to Earth or Theta Arae?

twaeked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm done. Nice work, though I wish astronomy articles in general had a higher standard of accessibility. Tezero (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I can support now. Nice work all around; I now know slightly further from nothing about constellations. Tezero (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks/much appreciated...I try to make these articles as accessible as possible...quite a challenge Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Other comments

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• File:NGC_6845GALEX.jpg: permission links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

clarified - there are live links in the licencing template. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html#Guidelines

ST11

• Only three things: I'd expect to see GRB 980425, IC 4889, and SN 1998bw mentioned in the deep-sky objects section; they're all well-studied. I expect to support after this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

nice find on the GRB/SN - added now

Support and comments

Happy to support, just a couple of points below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• one of twelve... One of several...

this is tricky - flows alright when right next to each other I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• ESO-HARPS instrument — I think we need some sort of clue what this is

unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

I looked just at the lead section ... nothing for me to do. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

thx/appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Note from Ian Rose

Just a reminder to seek a source review, Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

oops, missed this - asking now.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Source review from Laser brain

• I noted that you are in the habit of providing page numbers for book sources but not journals. Is there a reason for that? For example, I looked up the Traulsen article and there are page numbers on the PDF.

I'll add page numbers from long journal articles usually but never did it for short ones as a rule. Not sure if there is a clear guideline on this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fn 39, not sure why the "retrieved" is here, as you don't put it in the fn for other online sources.

formatting mistake - fixed. The referencing for this article was in a format that I don't normally follow but decided to stick with it rather than change all to what I usually do. Was in other format - conformed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• In the Smith citation, just the PDF logo is there. In the Toddy citation, the logo is there followed by "(PDF)".

aaah, latter had old PDF parameter in citation format - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: I've perused the text and made a few minor refinements. Overall it is in suitable shape and so I'm lending my support. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

thx - changes look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)