Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ursa Minor/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2015 [1].

Ursa Minor[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've buffed over twenty constellations to FA status now - this article is the next in line. I think it is as good as the others. It's had an astronomer (Mike Peel (talk · contribs)) look it over as well as a few astronomy wikiproject folks. (and yes it is a wikicup entry) Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

italicised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – comprehensible even by an astronomic ignoramus like me. Clear, evidently comprehensive, very pleasingly written and well illustrated. Seems to me to meet the FA criteria. I wondered if there might be a suitable citation for the pleasing line about testing one's eyesight, but it's hardly a matter of great moment. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment: I'd expect to see W Ursae Minoris, RU Ursae Minoris, and SS Ursae Minoris all mentioned somewhere; they're all well-studied and interesting star systems. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was deliberating about some of these and how long to make the section. Will investigate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Have added the two eclipsing binaries. The dwarf nova is tricky as, although referenced in alot of articles, finding some specific characteristics of interest to a lay reader is proving elusive (I think we need something more concrete than lots of superhumps and periods....NB: this is best bet and there's not much on SS UMi in it, sadly) - and I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed and I believe it is FA worthy. Praemonitus (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's an enjoyable read and is just about ready for FA status. However, I did find a few small issues that I think need to be resolved:
  • "The star is thought to have undergone a helium flash, a point where the shell of helium around the star's core reaches a critical mass and ignites...": This is a 'helium-shell flash', which occurs later than the 'helium flash' event.[2] (Note the slightly different link.)
it was linked to that spot but I clarified in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well the link only redirected to the page; not the section. I've addressed it by adding an anchor to the helium flash article. Praemonitus (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The margin of error format flips between unspaced "487±8 light-years" and spaced "62.2 ± 3.9 years". Can you make it consistent?
removed spaces Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is inconsistent in its format of thousands. For example, "42 000 years", "16300 light-years", and "200,000 K". I personally prefer the comma separator as it is more difficult to misinterpret. But opinions vary.
I prefer the comma too - it's a "val" format that's doing it - removed and comma'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you can add the '|fmt=commas' option to the {{val}} template. It's a bit of a nuisance though. Praemonitus (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HD 150706 is a sunlike star of spectral type G0V some 89 light-years distant from our Solar System that was thought to have a planet as massive as Jupiter at a distance of 0.6 AU that was subsequently discounted in 2007": I think this could be written a little better.
I tried this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been characterized as a starburst galaxy, which means it is undergoing a high rate of star formation compared to a typical galaxy": opinion needs a cite.
reffed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is also noted for its radio lobe": opinion needs a cite.
reffed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ursa Minor is rather devoid of many deep-sky objects": devoid of many?
removed "many" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few issues with the footnotes:
    • Shouldn't "Guilherme de Almeida" be "de Almeida, Guilherme"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
    • "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian".
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
    • Benson et al is missing a date (1994).
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kirkpatrick et al is missing a date (2011).
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the citations have a linked title plus a doi or arxiv. These frequently resolve to the same address. For example, Sato et al (2013)
removed urls from journal cites Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote #66 says only "SIMBAD". It should be made consistent with the other SIMBAD references.
reformatted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

I'm moving to Ursa Minor Beta!! At last, a proper constellation, i.e. one I can see all year round. Just a couple of quibbles before I support this excellent article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • planet orbiting it. It and..— I don't like consecutive "it"s
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ursa Minor is notable as...— "some centuries" is vague to say the least. Three? 40? I think we should be given some idea. How long has it been the pole star?
several centuries - will nose around for a reliable source to tweak (the ref used is vague - will look for a better one) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sun" inconsistently capped
all capped now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further study published— "A further study" or "Further studies"
fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak:anything else needs fixing you can see? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry Cas, I thought I'd done this already Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no worries/thx for looking over it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

While we wait for a formal source review, citations for the end of the second para of History and mythology and the first para of Characteristics? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oops, forgot about them. will ger on it.... ok, added one and checked that other actually covered following sentence too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done; footnote numbering is as of this revision (18:16, 1 August 2015 UTC)

Notes

  • The inline ordering of notes and refs should be consistent; currently we have [17][a], [b][17], and [c][23]
After recent edits it is now [12][a], [17][b], [c][17], and [d][23] - Evad37 [talk] 12:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
all aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should foonote c start with a capital letter?
Now note d. after recent edits - Evad37 [talk] 12:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
capped now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

  • Capitalisation (sentence case or title case) should be consistent, at least for same type of citation. E.g. (journals/periodicals) cites 5. and 7. uses title case for the article while cites 43. and 47. uses sentence case; (books) 9. uses sentence case while others use title case. (these are just some of the examples)
all converted to title case now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
update: sorry, not sure how but missed these last two....title cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some ISBNs are plain numbers, others use dashes – should be consistent (either way)
dashes added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: Missing a period after H.J.P
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4, 8, 17: "self-published" appears after a period, so it should be capitalised
capped now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7: Why use the abbreviation Proc. Am. Philos. Soc?
laziness on my part. Unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14, 15: Citation elements should be separated by periods rather than commas, for consistency with other citations
accidentally left in old "citation" format, converted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17: Ridpath, Ian should be linked on first occurrence (cite 8.) rather than here
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45: Is the double hyphen (--) meant to be a dash (–) ?
yes. converted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 51: Missing publisher (and possibly other details)
added now. no author listed to add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Evad37 [talk] 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues struck – still waiting on the Notes issues - Evad37 [talk] 12:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the notes on scanning the FAC with my eyes. ok all done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all looks good now - Evad37 [talk] 23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Very nice! A few things (as always):

  • "Beta Ursae Minoris, traditionally called Kochab, is only slightly less bright than Polaris with its apparent magnitude of 2.08" - This sentence is ambiguous. Which star does the magnitude refer to?
Kochab - I rejigged the sentence now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness from one star passing in front of the other ..." - "perhaps "because of".
tried "due to" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • #9 Partially supports cited sentence.
Hmm, am going off discussion on section 2 of page 130, where they are discussing the fact (mystery) of Homer having only one Bear - what do you feel is unsupported? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "leading to speculation over what he saw the stars of Ursa Minor as", I don't see anything about speculation in the source.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit mystified but realised it is my view of the word "speculation" (akin to "pondering"), the author doesn't come up with any proposals as to what ursa minor was viewed as, so changed to this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • #15 Page of Google book not available to me.
  • #17 Source supports cited sentence.
  • #22 Source supports cited sentence.
  • #34 The figure 855 (light years) that this cites does not appear on a page of, to me, incomprehensible figures.
The distance is derived from the parallax - in this case 1000/3.81 x 3.26 = 855 light-years (starbox does it automatically). Have tweaked it to include margin of error anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • #44 Article states "The star is thought to have undergone a shell helium flash ... in 1979." The source is less specific.
Ok point taken, I have aligned it more closely - i.e. the flash is marked by the 1979 change (which is what the source says as it stops short of saying the 1979 event is the flash) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • #46 Source supports cited sentence.
  • #55 Source supports cited sentence.
  • #66 Source supports cited sentence.
  • #69 The source mentions lobes in the plural, and as far as I can make out, the new discovery was a stream of plasma and not the lobes themselves.
aaah the statement predated the source that I found. Wasn't a good one and I had some difficuly. Found a better one now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the article use "Ursae Minoris" in some places and "Ursa minor" in others? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ursae Minoris is the genitive ("of Ursa Minor" if you like) and it is how anything "of Ursa Minor" is denoted as with Bayer designations etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ursa_Minor/archive1&oldid=1144364652"