Talk:Beta Pictoris/GA1

GA Review

Really nice article! There are two points though that still need to be worked on for this to be 100% a GA:

• there are a few statements of facts that do not immediately provide a reference. This shouldn't be a problem though since I am sure that most of the tags I've placed can be taken from the list of references that is already available.
• one smaller thing is that some statements appear as: apparent magnitude is x; the distance was measured to be y; this gives the absolute magnitude z. I think the "z" parts needs either a note to show exactly how was the value obtained, or just a reference (probably one of the two used for x of for y).

Otherwise this looks GA-ready. Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I have added some of the details of the derivation to the article. Regarding the referencing, I have put in references for the unsupported statements you tagged (thanks for that), but several times you tagged a statement as when a reference which supports the statement was given in another statement in the same paragraph (e.g. both of the references in the variability section support the Delta Scuti variable classification, yet you tagged this statement as needing a reference!). Since it starts looking silly if every statement (especially every clause) has the same reference number, in the cases where you have done this, I have moved the reference to the first sentence (or statement in some cases) in the paragraph which is supported by the reference. I don't see that it is necessary to refer to the same reference multiple times if a contiguous block of sentences is supported by the same source. Icalanise (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better to have the same reference number than none at all. It might look silly, but think of the following case: (1) the asteroid's mass is x, and its radius is y.^[ref] What if the reference there only supports the radius? If it were instead x,[ref] y[ref], then I would now for sure that that value is covered in the same article. This example was within the same sentence, but if you have an entire paragraph, it might be even more confusing weather the mass is in the reference that is presented 3-4 lines later. So I suggest just use the same reference number, even if you use it 5 times in a single paragraph. That way is 100% clear. Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being far too paranoid about referencing: your example of putting the reference twice in the same sentence is in effect assuming the average reader is too stupid to figure out that the same footnote can apply to multiple statements in a sentence. Furthermore, I would argue that putting in too many references to footnotes disrupts the readability of sentences. Note that requiring every single statement to be referenced individually is not actually in the Good article criteria, nor even in the Featured article criteria - in fact I have pulled up several featured articles and noted multiple instances where statements in the same sentence are referenced by a single <ref> tag at the end of the sentence. Icalanise (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mising my point:

The 12 AU planet by itself cannot explain the structure of the planetesimal belts at 30 AU and 52 AU from the star. These belts might be associated with smaller planets at 25 and 44 AU, with masses around 0.5 and 0.1 Jupiter masses respectively. Such a system of planets, if it exists, would be close to a 1:3:7 orbital resonance. It may also be that the rings in the outer disc at 500-800 AU are indirectly caused by the influence of these planets.

How is it clear to a reader that the last statement is referenced in the first instance of the reference? Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've edited those parts myself and moved formulas to a separate notes section. Ah, and one more thing: don't use the first person in an encyclopedic article:

• "If we assume that we are viewing Beta Pictoris in its equatorial plane (a reasonable assumption since the circumstellar disk is seen edge-on), this gives a rotation period of 17 hours, which is significantly shorter than that of our Sun (609.12 hours[21]).[note 4]"
• "in our solar system we find carbon-rich meteorites (the enstatite chondrites are candidates for forming in a carbon-rich environment) and it has been proposed that Jupiter may have formed around a carbon-rich core.[35]"
• "We can calculate the rotation period using the equations of circular motion:"

I have followed your advice and put a reference tag on every single individual statement in the article. I personally find the text now unreadably clogged with footnotes, but at least there is absolutely no possibility for ambiguity about which reference supports which statement. Icalanise (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Very funny! Seriously, don't be pissy. I had left reference tags in places where facts (i.e. numbers or possibly debatable statements) were presented. Ah, and one more thing: beta pictoris is not a star, and therefore those sources you listed are unreliable or are misinterpreted. Therefore I am going to fail this GAN. Nergaal (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is beta Pictoris not a star? Please clarify. Alphapsa (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: if you want, you can probably push this for a wp:FAC. Just make sure you list it first through a peer review to solve some style issues. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"This is usually expressed as log g, the base-10 logarithm of the gravitational acceleration given in CGS units, in this case, cm/s²."

Okay, CGS might be useful sometimes, but this is most certainly not one of them. Only way I use CGS is to introduce students to SI, starting from some units they encounter in their everyday lives. But "usually expressed"? I think not- but it doesn't matter what I think; why make this complicated? 10m/s^2 is so neat and tidy, so is expressing acceleration based on that. But make it cm, AND logarithmic, what point am I missing here? Overall, it is nice to know this alternative (and somewhat unusual) way of expressing g, but does it really belong in Beta Pictoris' wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.199.130 (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

References