 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Article Check and Comment on Updating WR articles
edit@RhinoMind:@Chr1s 1:@Lithopsian: I've just updated this page and would like a final check before I move onto the problems of WR 104. Furthermore, I would suggest a more extensive coverage is needed with Wolf-Rayet stars, especially after reading the revealing "Solid scientific refs needed" [1] section in the WR 104 Talkpage, in which Lithopsian actually make some excellent points. The major failure is that the WR page says little on the real development of the nature of these rare stars. I.e The difference between planetary nebulae Wolf-Rayets and field Wolf-Rayets OR, say, the ionisation of the carbon or nitrogen lines OR the problems in calibration surface temperatures. Lithopsian has done an awful lot of work on these WR stars, but there needs to be improvements by other editors to get them up to scratch. (A general comment, not a criticism.)
Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. For the Wolf-Rayet stars (and nebulae) I absolutely agree. At the WR 104 TalkPage you write a lot about Wolf-Rayets in general and I would encourage you to put more info up about these stars in general, if you have access to some credible sources. I dont know what you are referring to exactly about "Lithopsian's excellent points" on the WR 104 TalkPage, but I believe it should be discussed there and not here. I have no comments about the contents of this specific page, as I have been more engaged in the WR 104 article (inspired by GRBs). RhinoMind (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Period
editApparently the time interval between shells is about 8 years.
The arti le offers two explanations for this.
In the section "Binary System Characteristics", it says "Shortly after periastron passage every eight years, the infrared brightness increases dramatically and then slowly drops again over a period of months. Here stellar winds collide with the dust formation created by the Wolf-Rayet star[...]". That implies that the dust waves are caused by the binary partner.
The section "Mechanism of Dust Production" describes a different mechanism, based on predictable episodes of mass shedding from a Wolf-Rayet, even without any binary pair. It seems to be based on [mumble] the way helium burns on such stars.
The first claim is cited to a WP:Primary Source, which I'm not qualified to assess. The abstract doesn't seem to mention any link between the orbital period and the waves of dust. The second claim isn't cited at all; it's one of series of paragraphs that give an approachable account of what this beast is like.
Both claims are presented in Wikipedia voice, so Wikipedia is directly contradicting itself.
I'm not sure whether to remove both claims; just remove one (which one?); stick in a shovel-load of citation-needed tags. I like the approachable and uncited account.
MrDemeanour (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
> I came here because I stumbled on this:
> https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia25432-dust-rings-in-the-wolf-rayet-140-system
> I don't know if we can use the picture, but it's a f'kin brilliant pciture - better than the one we have now.