Talk:Sakurai's Object

Img

Do we have some image of this transbulundum filimanjunk? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article submission for STFC prize

Directed at anyone who has contributed to this article and/or has it on their watchlist: The Science & Technology Facilities Council is currently holding a journalism prize whereby an individual can win a trip to the European Southern Observatory in Chile. I would like to enter the competition, and was considering expanding this article even further and submitting it as mostly my own work. This obviously isn't the case and I would never consider any article on Wikipedia entirely my work, however I have recently expanded this article and plan to expand it even further to a full article in the coming week, following which I would consider the majority of the editing here to be my own work.

The rules of the prize state that "The entrant will normally be the prime author of the entry. If not... any other contributors or collaborators must consent to the submission of the entry by one individual."

I would like to request that, following further expansion by myself, and assuming that no other editors contribute largely to the article, that I be allowed to submit this article as majorly my own work. If anyone objects then that is fine and I will not pursue entry for the prize using this article. Thanks. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, hmm, hmm... actually the first and second paragraphs are largely "mine", User:Fukumoto's and User:Tmlawlor's (donated from us to the Wikipedia and the world wide community of Creative Commons-share-alike). You could of course claim that you are the "prime author", if perhaps the Science & Technology Facilities Council accepts such a statement. I have no wish to go to ESO in Chile, so I will spiritually support your candidature. But please keep the article encyclopedic according to the policies. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I may have worded it badly but I didn't mean to claim ownership or imply that anything not written by myself was. I will of course keep the article encyclopedic, I have been meaning to carry on writing it for a while and this is more an incentive to do so than anything. Thanks for your support. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that it is not my intention to dissuade anyone from editing this article. If you wish to edit the article, please do so as you otherwise would have. I am more than happy to not use this article as my submission if it means other editors contribute towards writing it. I can always write something else but this article will obviously be a much better article if it is collaborative. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just remembered about this; worth noting that I did not apply for the contest in the end. Sam Walton (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Plan on improving this article..

I would like to improve this article to GA.. Oshwah and Eat me, I'm an azuki, would you be willing to join me in improving the article? Thanks and regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 04:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be an honor.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hell yes, I would! Count me in! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Joining per IRC Sn1per ^(t)(c) 05:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Reassessment to C class

I believe this article is well referenced with multiple inline sources that it can become a C class article.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead Section

UY Scuti, Eat me, I'm an azuki - I'm going to start by fixing the lead section of the article and go from there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Great Oshwah.. I'm taking the infobox. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 04:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Still working on it. Things picked up at work in the off-wiki life ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

UY Scuti, Eat me, I'm an azuki - I've gone through the lead section in a few waves and fixed it up. There is potentially more information that could be added, and the summary could use an improvement - however, I will wait until the article is expanded to its fullest ability before I do so. A good summary - one that proficiently paraphrases the article in its entirety - is completed as a last step. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Next Steps

UY Scuti, Eat me, I'm an azuki - Can we plot out together exactly what still needs to be done on the article and take them as tasks? This will delegate and organize tasks and make sure that we're not accidentally doubling-up on tasks and leaving others without progress. Once we complete a list of tasks, we should swap them with one another so that a second pair of eyes can verify and correct any mistakes or anything that was missed the first time. Is that cool? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do copyediting.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Significance in astronomical research

This section is full of WP:WTW issues and WP:NPOV implications that clearly do not meet the good article standards. I'm going through the section and fixing it now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Made a first round and fixed (what I believe) are most of the issues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sakurai's Object/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar is consistently correct throughout.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Meets criteria relating to the MoS.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article contains a list of properly formatted citations.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Meets criteria, and additionally meets the mentioned scientific citation guidelines.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No clear or detectable OR.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Both manual and tool lookups do not return any significant chance of a copyright violation.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Each apparent major aspect of Sakurai's Object have been addressed while...	Pass
(b) (focused)	...staying focused on the key aspects.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article represents all viewpoints without bias.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The article can be considered stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The sole image is from Commons.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The sole image has a suitable caption.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Clearly meets the GA criteria without the need for improvements.

Discussion

• @Samtar: Are you sure that 3a is satisfied? While I haven't looked through in much detail I'd be surprised if this relatively short article was a good summary of the nearly 300 papers which mention the subject nearly 80 papers specifically about the subject. Sam Walton (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Samwalton9: I think the additional note 3 should clarify your doubt (it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.). Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 07:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Samwalton9: Thanks for your comment and concern - when evaluating GA's I try to balance between the criteria and the community expectations for a GA. I firmly believe that this article meets the criteria, and agree with UY Scuti that the "main aspects" of the topic are covered adequately. I would advise editors that this article's scope is not yet sufficient for it to be classed a FA, which requires significantly more coverage -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)