- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
BV Centauri
edit- ... that scientists have observed prominences on BV Centauri, over 1000 light-years from Earth? Source: ref 4
- Reviewed: Chanju Samantha Mwale
Created/expanded by Jolielegal (talk) and Lithopsian (talk). Nominated by The Bushranger (talk) at 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC).
Long enough. New enough. Citations throughout. But citations could be more precise by giving more specific pages, rather than broad ranges. Fairly technical article, at least to this lay person. Hook is interesting enough. But I couldn't find the source for the 1600 light year figure in citation 4. I found it in citation 6, on page 309 as 500 parsecs ± 100 parsecs, which I believe translates to 1630 ± 326 light years. So two things: the citations need to get more specific pages, and the hook needs to be more accurate. Hybernator (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jolielegal and Lithopsian: - unfortunatly I'm not an expert in this field enough to work on it comfortably. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, citation 6 at the moment, although citation 2 mentions the same figure. I've added a convert template to format the distance, but it ends up looking much the same: the convert template and similar conversions include automatic rounding to the last significant figure, so 1,630 (or 1,626) becomes 1,600. The distance is very uncertain (± 326 ly from that source, 400 light years nearer from a Gaia parallax), so it might be best to be more vague in the hook; "over 1,000 light years?" I don't know if that makes it more or less verifiable. Could mention table 4 in the citation. Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- A good idea, I've amended the hook accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- The new hook is fine. Thank you. References are still overly broad: i.e. citations 2, 3, 4, 6, 10. It's difficult to figure out which page(s) I should check up on. (They're not exactly easy reading either.) Hybernator (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Lithopsian: - is this something that can be fixed? Working on this is a bit outside my ususal expertise. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Hybernator: I see some work was done on the article. Is it better now? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see any work done on the references. They are still overly broad--at least to me. See it for yourself. Hybernator (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Mmm, in that case I belive I'm going to withdraw this nomination, as the creator seems to have moved on to other things and this isn't a topic I can comfortably adopt for myself, alas. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- The new hook is fine. Thank you. References are still overly broad: i.e. citations 2, 3, 4, 6, 10. It's difficult to figure out which page(s) I should check up on. (They're not exactly easy reading either.) Hybernator (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)