Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/61 Cygni/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2015 [1].

61 Cygni

edit
Nominator(s): -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. The last nomination failed die to lack of any attention from commentators and this try should make it go. Thanks..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one is right up my alley, so here goes...

  • all the images check out.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a number of duplicate links that should be unlnked. There's a great tool for finding these, here.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead has lots of cites. Generally I would suggest moving these out of the lead where possible, and placing them on the first mention in the body. I find that makes the lead easier to read and less distracting.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the correctness of the statement, but "till date" made my head swim. Is this a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue?
Rewrote..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus it not only has no proper name, it has no Greek letter name either." This statement is doubly confusing. The first part of the statement suggests that it has no proper name because it has a flamsreed designation, which I don't think is correct? Moreover, the lead suggests it does have a proper name (assuming "proper" means what I think it does in this context). The second part definitely needs some explanation, as I don't think most readers will be familiar with the constellation naming conventions. And if the names in the lead are common, it would seem they should be discussed here - how did it get these names, and why aren't they proper?
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Observation history" starts in 1804, which seems unlikely as it is naked eye visible. Is there really no record of it on any charts or maps prior to this time?
None could be found..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "313.6 mas" is not converted.
Converted to light years..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Groombridge 1830" this whole section is oddly worded, IMHO, perhaps "Only a few years after Bessel's measurement, Groombridge 1830 was discovered to have a larger proper motion and became the second highest known. It was later moved further down the list by Kapteyn's Star and Barnard's Star. 61 Cygni currently has the seventh highest proper motion of all stellar systems listed in the modern Hipparcos Catalogue, but retains the title of highest proper motion among visible stars."
Rewrote..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest "By 1911, further observations had improved on Bessel's parallax measurement of 313.6 mas to 310.0 mas. This corresponds to a motion transverse to our line of sight of 79 km/s. Observations at Yerkes Observatory measured its radial velocity as 62 km/s[29]. Using the two measurements together yielded a space velocity of about 100 km/s, moving towards a point about 12 degrees west of Orion's belt."
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "member of a comoving group of stars" what is the difference between "comoving group of stars" and a binary? Is this referring to a much larger group of stars with 26 members, or 26 other examples of the same type of group? In their case it would seem that some explanation here would be helpful.
Piped..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An observer using"... shouldn't this be in the next section where it talks about "although it appears to be a single star"?
Properties exclusively deal with the physical properties and IMO, have nothing to do with a guideline for an observer. Please correct me of I am wrong...-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cygni A has served as a stable K5 V "anchor point" of the MK classification system" I think this needs some expansion. There's a lot of unexplained jargon there - what is MK, and why is 61 the anchor? And what does "stable" mean in the context of it being a variable?
Its linked to their own respective articles and a further explanation will do no good (IMO)..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Component A has about 11% more mass than component B" If we're talking about 61 Cygni A and B, why the sudden change to use the term "Component"? It seems some of this para should be part of the previous and vice versa?
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that a third body must"... definitely mention that this first estimate was 16 jupiter masses. That explains the next statement, which is...
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reports of this third body served as inspiration for Hal Clement's 1953 science fiction novel Mission of Gravity." On of sci fi's great novels, but I think we need a cite on that.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest a para break at "in 1977" or alternately "in 1978"
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the mention of the habitable zone be here, or in the Properties?
Properties throw a light on that but this section can better explain it...-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Measurements of this system"... this comes immediately after talking about the SIM, but appears to be unrelated? If so, a para break would be useful.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not to be confused with 16 Cygni" - really don't need this. if anyone is confused about transposing digits, this note isn't going to help them!
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some additional minor GR edits and one re-arrangement. But as I somewhat suspected, it was not difficult to find documentation on earlier observational history. I'm back to Bradly in 1753 so far, which suggests that they were aware it was a binary and had high proper motion well into the 16th century. Given the use of Flamsteed, I suspect that the history doesn't go back more than another 40 years, but it's a start. Here is a good article with some of the history. I'm willing to take a stab at this myself if you'd like, but I leave it to your decision. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please....-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have made some pretty significant edits to the article. I have attempted to address the issue of the naming, but it remains unclear because I cannot find a suitable online reference, only the mention of a mention. I would also like to clarify exactly what von Struve was saying, because it is clear other observers knew it was a binary decades earlier and the various references stating he was the first to suggest it are obviously wrong. Others phrase it to be that he was the first to strongly argue for it, but laking any original sources I can't really say what it's about. I think both of these issues deserve more work before continuing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When its almost improbable that you will get a source, can you suggest some way to get it out..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I'm really uncomfortable with is the von Struve issue about the binary. I suspect this is simply a confusion of words - it appears he was making the argument that it really was a gravitational binary, as opposed to an optical one, but no one really says that. Removing that would have no effect on quality, IMHO, while removing the mention of Flamsteed's naming would. So let me work on Flamsteed for a day or two? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::Please, if you could..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Looks like its a trifle and if superfluous, I shall remove it. -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 08:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I've gone though part of it. There are a number of usage errors that concern me. None of us are perfect, but the frequency of odd or incorrect usages is concerning.
Lede
  • "Bessel's Star or Piazzi's Flying Star" do these names have any currency? Ghits for Piazzi are just over 3,000 (for 61 Cygni it's over 120,000).
  • " reported detections of a massive planet " possibly "evidence" for "detections"
  • "Despite of many such claims". I wouldn't bother correcting the error, I'd just delete the whole phrase. The rest of the sentence stands fine on its own and concludes the lede well.
  • "till date" to date
Name
  • "61 Cygni is relatively dim and does not appear on ancient star maps and has not been associated with a traditional name in western[16] or Chinese systems,[17] although a full accounting of the over 3000 stars in the later system has not yet been completed." Several issues. The multiple and, the lenghty part of the sentence that follows the second and. "full accounting" is not a phrase I necessarily associate with astronomy. "later system" should be "latter system". If you mean not all of the stars mapped by Chinese astronomers have been identified, but there's work to be done, come out and say it.
  • "assigned for stars." Maybe "assigned to stars"
  • "Right Ascension" why the caps?
  • "not using Greek letters" this feels too abrupt to me.
  • The final sentence of this is trying to do way too much.
Observational history
  • "when he noticed it being a double." Huh?
I'll come back to this as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done but all..-Thè Heralð • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have a PR promised but I'll come back when that's done. It should be by the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Observational history
  • "The first well recorded observation of the star " The star? Not the system?>
  • "when he noticed it as a double star" should "as" be "was"?
  • After the build up, what were the results of Herschel's observations?
  • "this date". More likely "that date"
  • "Piazzi's repeated measurements led to a definitive value of its motion which he published in 1804.[23][24] who christened it the "Flying Star" There is a significant grammar problem in this sentence.
  • "primary target " perhaps "prime candidate", then later on, when you speak of the other two stars, change "likely candidates" to "possiblitities"
  • "Attempts include François Arago and Claude-Louis Mathieu in 1812 at 500 mas" this is likely to puzzle the reader.
  • It's a bit obscure why Peters felt the need for another value. That's all a bit muddled there.
  • I think "von", beginning a sentence, should probably be capitalised
  • "all of these numbers are more accurate than the equipment being used could possibly measure" This seems a bit difficult as well. What you are basically saying is that they took the value to more significant digits than the data would justify. I'm not sure how you phrase that scientifically but I'm sure you can work something up.
Amateur observation
  • "61 Cyg's" Is this perhaps a nickname?
Properties
  • Why is binary system linked, in particular, here? You've been using the term, on and off, thoughout the article. I'm not saying it's a bad place to have a link, I'm just trying to figure out the rationale. This section seems so introductory it is a surprise to find it so late in the article.
  • Gyr should probably be linked inline, it may be well to just explain it in a parens.
That's really all I have. I'll make another run through the prose once you've one these. Not ready to take a position on support or opposing, I want someone with more knowledge in the field than I. Once you get into specialized science, all I can really do is look at prose and MOS.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Done all and rewrote. -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm watching the review, in general I look favorably on it. I'd like to see it looked at by someone more knowledgeable than me on astronomy. Once it has, I'll give it another read-through.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Simon Burchell

Parallax measurement

Binary observations

General

  • When referring to our sun, you have both capitalised "Sun" (for example, in the Binary observations section), and uncapitalised "sun" (for example, in the Parallax measurement section). Choose one and stick with it; I believe that the astronomy MOS prefers capitalised when referring to our sun. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- This nom is kind of living on borrowed time without any declarations of support after a month, but I'm loathe to archive it when the commentary is continuing. I note Wehwalt's last comment, and wonder if Cas would mind lending a hand here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason no-one has supported is that there is a pervasive clunkiness about the prose that is going to require extensive massaging. I really am happy there are keen editors like The Herald (talk · contribs), but astronomy articles can be tricky with the balance between jargon/exactness and accessibility quite a challenge to achieve at times. I have been intermittently busy and was (sort of) waiting till the dust had settled with previous reviewers. Part of me wants to copyedit but part of me in inwardly groaning that the amount I'd have to do would mean double-checking the sources etc. Just a question of whether we close this or I try to copyedit and everyone take another look afterwards. TIme is a bit patchy and I might have to drop things suddenly, but I will see what I can do in the next 36 hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 61 Cygni is relatively dim and does not appear on ancient star maps and hence has not been associated with a traditional name in western[16] or Chinese systems.[17] Nonetheless, a full accounting of the over 3000 stars in the Chinese system has not yet been completed. - this para can be deleted. It'd be unusual if 61 Cyg had a proper name in either chinese or western systems.
  • It has also been called "Bessel's Star" or "Piazzi's Flying Star". - needs a citation. Also, there should be a source that states these are old names and when they were used.
I'm not talking about deleting the second para, that is ok. I think adding the ages of the alternate star names would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 61 Cygni A is a typical BY Draconis variable star designated as V1803 Cyg while 61 Cygni B is a flare type variable star named HD 201092 with their magnitudes varying 5.21 V and 6.03 respectively - badly written - no need to abbreviate V1803 Cyg if other "Cygni"s are unabbreviated. The catalogue number HD 201092 has nothing whatsoever to do with whther a star is variable or not and should be placed in the names section. Finally, find refs and put magnitude ranges in. The 'V' there is an annotation for a catalogue and has no place in prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempts include François Arago and Claude-Louis Mathieu.... - the people aren't the attempts here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm clueless, mind you, but I found this: "Thus, parallaxes are hard to measure (not seen until 1838 by F.W. Bessel, who determined the parallax of 61 Cygni at 0.29 arcsec -- final proof of heliocentric solar system)" on this page. I did CTRL-F for "heliocentric" on this Wikipedia article and found nothing, so 1) is this fact significant, and 2) is it mentioned? • Arch♦Reader 01:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is (1) yes, and (2) no. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Sorry, back: Support: Sorry for my disappearing act, busy elsewhere. I think we've addressed all the concerns I saw. However, I am a bit worried that I was able to find them so easily. I don't really know much about astronomy, but I was able to see big holes in the text. That said, they have been addressed, and there's no reason additional information can't be added in the future. As it stands now, it appears to cover everything I can find - with the exception of the 81 Cygni naming issue which I'd prefer a better cite for - so I'm good to go on this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference improvements

  • The statement "No habitable planets have been confirmed in this stellar system to date" appears to be contradicted by it reference, which looks very unreliable to me, so a new reference will be needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply removed this reference. The issue is well covered in the body and doesn't need a ref here, especially this one.
  • The reference "Stars-astro-illinois" is missing some info such as date and author ( Jim Kaler 8/07/09), the work is Stars and the page is called "61 Cygni" so the name which seems derived from the website needs changing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Fixed, but what do you think about simply removing this cite?
  • Reference Michael A. Covington. Celestial Objects for Modern Telescopes: Practical Amateur Astronomy is missing info such as ISBN, publisher and date. (Cambridge University Press, 26 Sep 2002) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Didn't bother with the ISBN.
Not adding.
Url added, how to translate inline?
I fixed this, it was trivial. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Waiting on this, I contacted Chris.
  • External link for Kaler, James B. "61 Cygni" is now dead. It is probably the same as reference "Stars-astro-illinois", and thus could be merged (archive link works) but archive version is not identical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This works fine for me. Temporary?
Is there more than one instance of this? I found/fixed that one.
I changed them all to the later, which searches better. Not that anyone uses these, but...

other issues

I used the format I used in uni.
I only saw this in the note area, so I expanded the mention. Is there another one swhere I;m missing?

Coordinator note - Unfortunately, it looks like The Herald has gone on an extended wikibreak. I will have to archive this nomination unless anyone is willing to step up and take it over. Maury Markowitz, you said this was within your area, but do you have enough knowledge/access to sources that you could adopt the article and address feedback given here? --Laser brain (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think I can nurse this one along, Graeme's list looks fairly tame so let me try to get some time on this this week? Can you give me until Saturday to at least take a serious stab at it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we'll leave it open. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just in time the author of the SIM page got back to me and confirmed he wrote it in 2005. He also noted, sadly, that the SIM project was killed. In any event, I think that covers everything in the list above. But I should point out that when I first came here I noticed some obvious problems with the article. These have been addressed, but its unclear to me, as a non-astronomer, whether there are others that are simply not so obvious. I'd like to hear your opinions on how to proceed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed two more page ranges, and tried to add translated titles. But I am not confident to translate the Latin title about positions of fixed stars.
I changed it, see if it works for you now. It seems there are multiple paths to the same page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley Miles

  • "No habitable planets have been confirmed in this stellar system to date." Why habitable? According to text below no planets have been observed. Also "to date" is recentism. Maybe "Up to June 2015, no planets had been confirmed in this stellar system."
  • "The star does not appear under that name in Flamsteed's Historia Coelestis Britannica,[20] although it has been stated by him that 61 Cygni actually corresponds to what he referred to as 85 Cygni in the 1712 edition." This is clumsy and unclear. Did Flamsteed actually use the term 61 Cygni as well as 85 Cygni? If not I suggest something like "The star is shown as 85 Cygni in the 1712 edition of Flamsteed's Historia Coelestis Britannica."
  • "he calculated it to be 470 ±510 mas" I would take this to mean between -40 and 980 mas!
  • Peters calculated a figure for distance based on Von Lindenau's measurement but Von Lindenau had seen no parallax?
  • " all of these numbers are more accurate than the accuracy of the instrument used." Perhaps "all these numbers are within the margin of error of the instruments used."
  • "a member of a comoving group of stars" What does this mean? The link suggests that comoving is something to do with the expansion of the universe.
  • "It has an activity cycle that is much more pronounced than the solar sunspot cycle." Does this refer to Cygnus A or B?
  • "There is some disagreement over the evolutionary age of this system." I do not understand this paragraph. It appears to say that the age of the system is between 10 and 0.44 billion years. Is that correct?
  • An interesting article but still needs copy editing. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry editors, but I think we have to close this now unless someone else is willing to pick up the baton. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/61_Cygni/archive2&oldid=1088824466"