Wikipedia:Peer review/Corona Australis/archive1

Corona Australis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not sure how much depth to go into each subtopic. Main one is discussion on the Corona Australis Nebula, which is the star-forming region that covers part of the constellation. Also not thrilled about the history bit - all input appreciated (I feel like a bit of a neophyte with this subject matter still). Thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Here are a few observations to start with.

• In the lead, "2nd-century astronomer" (2nd century is a compound adjective and takes a hyphen)

• Suggest "its regular arc of stars renders it distinctive in appearance." -> "its regular arc of stars renders it distinctive."

• "It contains one of the closest star-forming regions": Closest to what? Earth?

• "dusty dark nebula": wikilink "dark nebula", not just "nebula".

• "Corona Australis Nebula" -> redlink this?

• "about 430 light years away": again, from earth?

• "which varies correspondingly in brightness with them": Remove "correspondigly" (redundant)

• "The recommended three-letter abbreviation": Remove "recommended"? How is this a recommendation?

• "Not a bright constellation" -> "While not a bright constellation"

• "It is a blue-white main sequence star located 130 light years away" from Earth? From other stars?

• "spectral type A2Va": wikilink "spectral type"?

done down to here (leaving this as a placeholder really, though I do wonder about having to put "from Earth/our Solar System" after every "light year away" entry.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Beta Coronae Australis is an orange giant located 510 light years distant" from what?

• wikilink "double stars"

• I think you should say somewhere in the lead that it's made up of six stars.

I was contemplating removing that as if you type in Corona Australis into google images, then a varying number of stars are linked in a pattern, and it looks best when it is 8 or more as it starts to make a nice circle then. The number of six seems pretty arbitrary and I only found it in one source. I'll make a firmer decision once I find some more info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• "a pair of yellowish white stars 58 light years away, which orbit each other every 122 years" Away from each other?

agreed - that one is confusing... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• "they are splittable with a 100 mm aperture": No idea what this means.

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Both components are F8V dwarf stars" wikilink "dwarf stars"

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• "it lies 98 light years away" "and are 1700 and 490 light years away respectively" etc.

• The notable features section reads like a list rather than a narrative prose description. Instead of summarizing and touching on the key points, it's essentially a listing of the stars and their various properties. It doesn't make for engaging reading. I'd consider shortening this or finding some other way to summarize. You might move some of the material into the list of stars article.

• Στεφάνοι is Greek to me. What's it mean?

• "second century AD" -> 2nd century (consistency)

agreed/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The history is the best part of the article; in fact, you might consider expanding it if you want to get to FA status with this. I could see multiple sections on the various traditions. So Corona Australis in Greek culture/astronomy/whatever, in Chinese, in European etc. Or perhaps even better, you could make this chronological, describing how the constellation evolved in various mythoologies around the world. This would take a good amount of additional research, I imagine...best to find some books that go into depth on the subject.--Batard0 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for that! I'll get cracking.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RJH Comments – The prose looks good and there is some interesting material. Here are a few issues:

• The visual appeal of this arcing pattern of stars is only mentioned briefly in the lead. There's a few sources that mention it. Is there anything that can be added?
• Beta Coronae Borealis has the name Nusakan,[1] which contradicts the statement about the alpha star being the only one with a name.

errr. wrong Corona constellation ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm always a little iffy about terms like "blue-white ... star", because the color is subjective. But in the particular instance of α CrA, the color of an A-type star is usually described as white.[2]

duly whitened Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Kappa Coronae Australis ... the blue white components": the classes are B9V and A0III; pretty close I guess, but probably more white than blue white.

gah! I'll leave it out and write about each separately. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Lambda Coronae Australis is another A-type star, but is described as blue white.

duly whitened Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• R Corona Australis is a Herbig Ae star.[3] You might mention that.
• Epsilon Coronae Australis is a contact binary of the W Ursae Majoris-type. Worth a mention, I think.

agreed and added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the paragraphs are pretty brief. Can they be expanded a bit?
• In the history section, some individuals are identified by their nationality and profession while others are not. It would be good to better identify Ptolemy and Jérôme Lalande.

agreed and added Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Some instances of the redundant text 'also'.

subtracted Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• For the SIMBAD references, the full name is the "SIMBAD Astronomical Database" and the publisher is "Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg".

A fleshier ref definitely makes me feel more comfortable Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)