As far as I can tell (Google, Starry Night, Bayer/Flamsteed) the Greek letters Kappa, Lambda, and Mu were skipped (possibly because they got "moved" to another constellation when the IAU redefined constellation boundries, when was it, 1930 or so). Beta does exist, but it is fainter than all the rest, breaking the usual pattern of asigning Greek letters in magnitude order.--Todd 01:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no 'usual pattern' of assigning Bayer letters in magnitude order. In this case the letters are clearly assigned in order of RA, at least in the northern half of the constellation. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to revert any of the copyedits I may have made, or to disagree with any of my following comments, some of which may not have any bearing on whether the article gets promoted. I know nothing about astronomy, so please bear with any questions I may have.
only minor headache is that I always use last two digits of pagerange, and you've gone and made them all complete/three digits. Still, there's no hard and fast rule on this and as long as they are all consistent no-one will care much. so no biggie... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
/ˌmaɪkrəˈskɒpiəm/ — is this really the pronunciation?
hmm....all the constellations seem to have them, and doesn't agree with this or this either...I'd always pronounced the 'o' long - never noticed that the phonetic alphabet has text helping on hover...will look into this. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it's not sourced, and it's no the pronunciation you're familiar with, it might be best to drop it. It's not like the name will give readers headaches the way some of these Latin-derived names do. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 11:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it normal to have the "History" section before the "Characteristics" section? There's a logic to it, but I wonder if that's what readers would expect or be looking for first.
meh, slotted it at the bottom - does help with images :) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
he did not pinpoint their positions: Al-Sufi or Ptolemy? The source seems ambiguous on this as well.
it's Al Sufi- tricky to try and write this without sounding repetitive - the easiest is to put "Al Sufi" in parentheses after the "he" in question......? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I've taken a crack at it. Revert it if you don't like it. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 10:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
are challenging stars for beginners: in what ways?
presumably hard to find on charts due to lack of distinctive patterns in neighbouring stars and quite faint at times, so hard to follow. I am assuming this but unfortunately the source doesn't spell out why..... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
For Lacaille 1756, what does "page=519– " mean?
means the relevant note is on that page...I forgot to put last page of article, added now...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
What make's Ian Ridpath's site a RS? Normally we are to avoid such sources per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Who is Ridpath? (now I can see you've cited another work by him published by Princeton. I imagine it's okay, then).
yeah.....Ian Ridpath has written alot of astronomy books (e.g. see on google) and has his own website Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Same may apply to Kaler, though as he's Prof. Emeritus of Astronomy, University of Illinois, and the site's obviously not a blog, I can't imagine anyone raising a fuss. (You might want to back up the page at archive.org or something).
I don't see anything like plagiarism or close paraphrasing going on here. If the Lacaille citation can be cleared up, sources should be fine.
As far as I can tell, the article seems comprehensive and well-written. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 09:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Pass another Good Article. I might play around with the image placements to avoid the sandwiching that's still there, and I'd probably either source or drop the IPA. I'd also look into the single-quoting, if only to find out why it's done. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 11:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"Given that its brightest stars are of fifth magnitude, the constellation is invisible to the naked eye in areas with polluted skies" - could link to light pollution, and comment on what level of light pollution is needed before it can't be seen.
"four of the Mira variables in Microscopium were very urgently needed as data on their light curves was incomplete" - why are their light curves important?
The article highlights that since the death of Danie Overbeek, apparently many long period variables are not being observed regularly and hence there are gaps in the coverage of their curves. The article doesn't explain why this is important (though I can guess it is because some long period variables are changing and hence it is extremely valuable to catch them in action as they contribute to knowledge of stellar evolution....?) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"are challenging stars for beginners" and "are more difficult" - it could be clearer that this is talking about amateur astronomy observations. It also seems a bit out-of-place amongst scientific results, unless there's a connection between the two.
I like trying to drop big fat hints in articles that everyone can do science - alot of astronomy is helped greatly by amateur astronomers, especially monitoring of variables...these pesky Miras...every constellation has 'em..but are there enough eyes watching them? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"The system is metal-poor" - could do with an explanation of what "metal-poor" means (and probably also what "metal" means, since astronomy has an unusual definition of this word!).
"a minor meteor shower described in 2012" - the "described in 2012" seems unnecessary, unless it means "discovered in 2012" (which I don't think is the case, since they were mentioned in 2009). It would be good to link to meteor shower, and consider adding it to List of meteor showers.
"History" could be merged with "Characteristics" to match the other constellation articles.
I'd recommend merging the Wagman ref and the in-line refs #5, 6, 37 into a single in-line ref, which would mean that you could remove the sub-sections of the references section. Alternatively, the "Citations" bold text should probably be a subsection to match "Cited texts".