Talk:Perseus (constellation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Featured article Perseus (constellation) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 11, 2014.
WikiProject Astronomy / Constellations  (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Perseus (constellation) is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Constellations taskforce, which collaborates on articles related to the constellations.
 

Visibility[edit]

When is Perseus visible?

The infobox in the article already has this information. Ian Cairns 14:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

H. A. Rey[edit]

In section Visualizations H. A. Rey gets about 7/8 of the text, which is undue weight to a really ahistoric visualization, missing the traditional Medusa Head that explains why β is named Algol. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At last I got why the lousy ugly stupid imbecille childish sissy Rey depictions are so infinitely provocative: deeming from the ridiculous gown-figure, Algol doesn't mean the eye of the demon, it means the selvage of the gown of the sissy warrior with a funnel on his head. That's contrafactual. The old Arabs would decapitate whosoever makes such a denigrating claim, and they would do so with my affirmation. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Age of Perseus?[edit]

In ancient times, some astrologers and even a few astronomers began to consider there was a possibility the ecliptic crossed the legs of the constellations Perseus and Auriga, as well with the constellations of Orion and Sextans, due to the constant shifting of the planets' travel in space and changable shifts of the earth's axis. The astrological "Age of Perseus" or "Auriga-us" symbolized the rise of civilization in 5th to 3rd millennia BC, already declared the Age of Aries and/or Age of Taurus. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Section needed?[edit]

In my preliminary sweep of this article, I noticed that the "visualizations" section, as Rursus notes above, gives an incredible amount of weight to H. A. Ray's perspective. However, I am going to take it a step further; I don't think that this section is necessary at all. What are people's opinions on this? StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of it before today - if it is not mentioned by anyone else (i.e. a secondary source), I'd be tempted to remove it. I am not sure anyone is hugely fussed by the lines anyway...much of the time they are subjective and sometimes folks stick extra ones here and there in books without any comments whatsoever. They have no official status. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
In every constellation article I've worked on, I've removed this section. I don't think it's notable at all or worth mentioning. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the section now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Layout of stars subsection[edit]

I was thinking first para on Mirfak and closeby members of alpha persei cluster. Para two on Algol. Xi Persei and California nebula are discussed together here so is a coheseive topic to keep together and makes the article less listy (?) Sound ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, do we want a table for naked-eye stars that are boring? 'Cause I'm okay with that, if we can't find anything at all interesting. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I don't think a table is such a good idea. We already have a similar table at list of stars in Perseus, and the see also link suffices, I think. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree - we just link to the list of.. subarticle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Works for me. Yay consensus! :P Keilana|Parlez ici 06:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also Xi and Zeta part of another OB association too, so we can do big groups of stars and features....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I do like to segregate DSOs and stars for the most part, rather than discussing everything geographically, but if you guys think geographic paragraphing makes more sense for this one I'm okay with it. I'm flexible. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way; I'm fine with Casliber's proposal. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Am deliberating. We can always rearrange once we get some more content and see how it pans out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-western astronomy[edit]

Isn't the Chinese stuff from Staal mostly nonsense? What are his sources? As with R. H. Allen, his book is to be used with caution, if at all. 85.210.25.6 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Perseus (constellation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 15:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Starting review - please be patient.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    No problems here. Article is readable, with no glaring prose errors.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Citations are well-done here. Excellent formatting.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Thorough referencing in this article.
    C. No original research:
    None that I could discern.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Hits the broad highlights
    B. Focused:
    No unnecessary tangents. Focused on the constellation and its stars/objects.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Seems to be fine. I checked into the claim on the talk page that the Staal reference is unreliable vis-a-vis Chinese lore, but I can find no supporting evidence for the claim. Should that issue resurface with good evidence, then that section should be revisited.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Though some content (about 5K worth) was added this month, I think this article is still relatively stable. No evidence of edit wars.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images are fine.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    I added some alt text to images myself, which satisfies me on this requirement.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Quite a good article, and on its way to becoming FA class.

Excellent[edit]

Just read this, and it really wouldn't need much work to become an FA, I think it could be done easily! Hope that's the goal. Ideally, I'd like to see all the major planets and astronomical phenomenon become GAs or FAs!! Good job to all who worked on this! ArielGold 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Just take it slow and steady, eventually the important articles will all be FA'd :).StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Love your user name! While I don't really think that the "fluff" stuff should be FA'd, (I can't see the "Pokeman" character pages as FAs... I'll most likely be flamed for that, so apologies to the fans in advance.) I'd really like to see ALL planets, presidents, countries, and major science/medical articles at the very least, GA, and as a goal, as you said, FAs. I wish I had the time and could remember enough to be more help, but just getting back after a 3 year absense, and so much has changed, I don't want to just dive in and do anything major. My Bete noire is a typo or grammatical/spelling error, so normally those are a no-brainer. Heh. Awesome work on this article, and I'm sure all those you've contributed to, ST! ArielGold 08:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. I definitely agree with what you say on the stuff to FA; in fact, I think you'll be very interested in this presentation from 2011 by User:TCO. Anyways, everything's helpful, even something as small as adding a missing space. Hopefully once the PR is over, I'll nominate this for FA (if there's no feedback that it still needs a lot of work). Good luck relearning Wikipedia! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Update - I have fiddled with this a little - just added a few items which I feel make it flow a bit better. Just been trying to trawl the web for better material on chinese astronomy (there must be some out there!!), after which time I reckon a renomination is in order....if you're happy StringTheory11, am happy to be a co-nominator as four (or six if Keilana (talk · contribs) joins in helps if the FAC gets unwieldy - as an example take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Redback_spider/archive1 as a sobering example (sigh...getting there). Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that's totally fine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Authorities on Chinese star-lore[edit]

I just stumbled over this page, which gives and interesting summary of who has written what about Chinese star names etc. I have been trying to find stuff online without much success. This seems to say that Schlegel and Staal will be ok for star names etc, but they go off on a tangent with their assumption of transcription of Chinese astronomy from 15000 BC. The book used currently (unfortunately a juvenile non-fiction) appears to be by Julius Staal as well. Be good to find the Staal book Stars of Jade: Astronomy and Star Lore of Very Ancient Imperial China, or the Schlegel book Uranographie Chinoise (but is in French :P) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, so I now have Uranographie Chinoise, except that mon Francais est no good. C'nest pas un problem insurmountable. Nous avons besoin some French speakers.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Is the source online anywhere? If so, would it be unrealistic to ask WP:FRANCE for help? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually pretty easy to figure out - has some maps etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Easy - apart from the segment with the double cluster - there is no goddamn index so I can't figure out where that is. Need some time. Once done we can nominate again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)