Talk:Capella/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article is well-referenced, but before I go into prose corrections; the nominator is going to need to tidy up the article with those tables. Perhaps we could move them into their own section? Ceran^→//forge 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The infoboxes are standard for star articles. Spacepotato (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just checking in, has there been any updates to this review? It's currently the article at GAN which has gone the longest without a full review. Gary King (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note from me - I can't really review this as I did some sprucing up of this earlier, but am keen to point out some stuff and help out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - instead of referencing the rather general Australian Aboriginal astronomy article, which needs tidying and citations, could that sentence be changed to either note that the name was Purra for the Booroung of Victoria, or could a reference be found that determines that the name was Purra across, say, much of the Eastern Seaboard? Not sure that an 1857 ref is going to be appropriate for a generalisation to the whole of Aus. indigenous culture. Iridia (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Formatting

• I am getting big white blocks of blank space between Bright binary pair and Companion binary, and then between that and Visual companions on my screen - I am using latest firefox browser FWIW. Also, the blue-topped table Multiple/double star designation is wedged in the middle of wrapped text below Visual companions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

I revised the formatting of the multiple star component table. As for the infoboxes, the advantage of this formatting is that it places the infoboxes on each of the binary systems (Aa/Ab and HL) next to the text which discusses them. Spacepotato (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this sort of layout can be insanely frustrating when one is faced with an article whose specific properties will make the layout go all skewiff. I mentioned it as I think it will be hammered later by other editors on its road to FAC. I am thinking what else could be written - and another thing that comes to mind is discussion on the Hyades group (currently a redlink and only passingly mentioned on the Hyades page too). It can be hard to find enough info on some stars, and a brief discussion on the larger group and where the star is moving i nthe cosmos I think is fascinating. This could add another sentence or two under the redlink anyway. I am giving this one some thought. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that whoever is doing the review on this put the fact that a reveiw is being conducted on the main GAN page... it currently shows no one reviewing the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Although someone created a review page, I think that the GAN page is correct—there's no currently active reviewer. Spacepotato (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okies, I'll review this shortly then... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   a few prose spots that could use smothing and the Lead needs to not have any information in it that isn't in the body of the article

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   although there are a few things missing from the dwarf pair information that are given in the bright pair

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

• Concur with the huge white space issue. Granted, I have a large (30" monitor) but even when I shrink the window down to half my monitor, it still leaves rather large white spaces that are unsightly. Since the Hyades moving group is a redlink, suggest expanding that a bit for the non-astronomers in the reading audience. What is a moving group? Don't depend so much on wikilinks in the lead either, expand a bit on any unfamiliar terms. The lead should be the most accessible part of the article. Also, there is information in lead that isn't in the body of the article. Lead should repeat all the information in the body of the article, and sumarize it. Right now, most of the lead is information that isn't in the body of the article.
• What's an interferometicalist?
• Bright binary pair section, second paragraph suggest that you drop "of" between both sentences that say "measured over all wavelengths, of approximately..."
• What's a non-eclipsing binary?
• The companion binary, is there no information on the compositon, etc? Similar to the bright companion information?
• Explain what a "visual compaion" is, don't just wikilink to it. It's obviously important enough to have a section to itself, you can give a quick capsule explanation. (I get the impression that a visual companion is a star/object that by a trick of perspective, looking from the earth, appears to be close to another star, but in reality is far far away)
• Visibility section. This sentence is awkward "Capella was the brightest star in the night sky from 210,000 years ago, before which Aldebaran was brighest, to 160,000 years ago, after which Canopus was brightest." Suggest "From about 210,000 to 160,000 years ago, Capella was the brightest star in the night sky, following Aldebaran and preceding Canopus as brightest object." (although I'm not entirely happy with that either...)
• The Etymology section, suggest combining some of the short paragraphs into larger ones, perhaps based on geography. Right now, all the short paragraphs make the prose incredibly choppy feeling.
• It's common to put refs in the order "Allen 1899 p. 87" not "p. 87, Allen 1899" Is this some weird astronomical convention? (I've not seen it in the astronomy FACs though..)
• The non-English sources in the references need to state which language they are in.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking your comments in order:

1. (a) Re the whitespace issue, the text is organized in this way to permit the text for each binary pair (Aa/Ab and HL) to be next to the infobox dealing with that pair. (b) I expanded the lead. Also, all the information in the lead is now found in the body of the article.
2. An interferometrist is someone who does interferometry.
3. I made the suggested change.
4. A non-eclipsing binary is a binary in which neither star passes in front of the other, as seen from Earth.
5. I expanded the infobox. Unfortunately, there is little information available on the second star in this pair.
6. I explained what a visual companion is in the article.
7. I rewrote this sentence.
8. User:Casliber rewrote this section.
9. I see no reason to prefer one format over the other. However, I reformatted the references to put them in your preferred format.
10. I made the suggested change.

Spacepotato (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)