Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/61 Cygni/archive3

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2019 [1].

---

61 Cygni

Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. Last nomination failed because I had to undertake a Wikibreak without notice and was unable to respond to the queries and reviews. Ready to pick the baton up and run this time. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Graeme Bartlett

I am splitting the article into word and symbols and looking for werid stuff

• 10x should use the special times symbol (×) 10×. "7×50" does use the times symbol
• The words "smallmatrix" and "end" can be found when you search the page
• There are some uncopyable pieces of text (connected with the above smallmatrix, that should be copyable. These include the formulas in the notes.
• The text 4^{2} also appears in hidden places.
• In places arcsec is used and in others arc-seconds is.
• There is a category of "Local Bubble" but there is no mention in the text of the connection to that. Is the star system in the Local Bubble?
• The word "astrosphere" is used without link or explanation.
• "Praecipuarum" should be written with "æ" according to title page.
• "61 Cygni currently has ..." is a potentially dated statement (should we have as of 2018?)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Done except the formula part. Per WP:FORMULA, I presume that's because of the problems in rendering LaTeX commands. Markup all looks fine to me. Thanks..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Now looking at references, for missing or wrong information. I have run citation bot and it made a few changes that seem OK.

• "SIMBAD Query Result: V* V1803 Cyg -- Variable of BY Dra type" -- first use of publisher's or authors names should be linked so we should link SIMBAD.
• "The Internet Stellar Database" -- the date is 4-April-2001 and is the author Roger M W? (get some idea as to whether this is good and reliable as there is no Wikipedia article on it)
  • Date should be 4-April-2001 not 2011.
• "Photoelectric observations of stars with variable H and K emission components. III" -- publish date is May 1979
• "High precision effective temperatures for 181 F-K dwarfs from line-depth" -- Gorlova, N. I. is listed twice
• " RECONS Mission Statement" seems to have nothing to say about 61 Cygni in its page or archive, so either something changed and a deeper archive is needed or we need another reference. Anyway the title does not sound promising for the vital stats of the stars.
  • Now the link goes to something that works, but the title of that appears to be " The One Hundred Nearest Star Systems brought to you by RECONS (Research Consortium On Nearby Stars) "
• "The radii of the nearby K5V and K7V stars 61 Cygni A & B. CHARA/FLUOR interferometry and CESAM2k modeling" the author list should be provided not with "et al"
• "Stars within 15 Parsecs: Abundances for a Northern Sample" published February 2005
• "Directly Determined Linear Radii and Effective Temperatures of Exoplanet Host Stars" published 23 March 2009
• "Sixth Catalog of Orbits of Visual Binary Stars" - ad.usno.navy.mil uses an invalid security certificate -- perhaps this is a temporary screw up, or perhaps we can find an archive that has copied it. (there is a copy here https://web.archive.org/web/20181122042720/http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/orb6.html but it appears that it is not just a web page to see the answer on, but a set of connected pages, so perhaps this reference needs more instructions on how to get the answers.)
  • Now site appears completely dead.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Navy website got fixed automatically I think. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have struck off the confirmed fixed things. Still some bits not quite right. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale images

• File:Cygnus_IAU.svg: given copyright tag isn't quite correct - should be 4.0 international

• File:Compare_61_cygni.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08

• Keep a consistent date format (access-date is inconsistent)
• I think the publisher should be The Internet Stellar Database and the title 61 Cygni "stellar-database.com". Retrieved March 19, 2015.
• , retrieved is different format than the other citesStaff (June 8, 2007), List of the Nearest 100 Stellar Systems, Research Consortium on Nearby Stars, Georgia State University, archived from the original on 1 July 2007, retrieved 2007-07-15
• Publisher should be Sky and Telescope Adler, Alan (26 July 2006). "More Pretty Double Stars". SAT.com. Retrieved March 19,2015.

I will have more comments later. Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Done ...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is stylized two different ways in the same paragraph: 10× magnification
• Hyphen in well-recorded? The first well recorded observation
• When? William Herschel began systematic observations of 61 Cygni as part of a wider study of binary stars.
• I prefer words like 'more accurate' instead of better. Peters calculated a better value
• So between -40 and 980? he calculated it to be 470 ±510 mas
• Is there another way to phrase this? I work with instrumentation, and I still do not get what the sentence is trying to say. all of these numbers are more accurate than the accuracy of the instrument used.
• The spacing before and after "±" do not match earlier uses. 369.0±19.1 mas to A and 260.5±18.8 to B, and estimated the center point to be at 313.6±13.6.
• I think we are to avoid phrasing like 'this is close' and let the reader determine if it is close or notThis is close to the currently accepted value of 287.18 mas (yielding 11.36 light-years).
• I do not know what proper motion is, it is never explained or linked
• So, under ideal viewing conditions,
• This is well within the capability for aperture of typical binoculars
• That whole paragraph seems like it is written by someone else. Maybe go through it and try to copyedit it some.
• I am guessing the Sun is normally not included in nearest known star systems? it is the 15th-nearest-known star system to the Earth (not including the Sun).
• Nine instead of 9 will be about 9 light-years.
• This sentence has an intuitive break you should useSmaller and dimmer than the Sun, 61 Cygni A has about 70 percent of a solar mass, 72 percent of its diameter and about 8.5 percent of its luminosity and 61 Cygni B has about 63 percent of a solar mass, 67 percent of its diameter, and 3.9 percent of its luminosity.
• Second one should have a unit right? varying 5.21 V and 6.03,
• Bit of a hard transition between saying the mass is uncertain and saying the mass of Cygni A is 11% greater than Cygni B. Is the relative mass well-known, and the exact masses not known? 61 Cygni A has about 11% more mass than 61 Cygni B.
• Punctuation the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. .[55]

That's all for now. Kees08 (Talk) 05:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Praemonitus

I have a bunch of concerns about this article, and it's not clear to me that it's FA ready yet.

• The red circle on the star chart looks to be well off in declination.

Done

• SIMBAD gets updated from time to time and isn't really a stable source. The only SIMBAD data the infobox should be referencing inline is the "Other designations". Everything else should be a direct reference.

Done

It's still not centered on the target star. Have a look here. Praemonitus (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The current method of placing the circle, a div with CSS positioning, is unreliable in this situation. I currently see the circle as offset to larger right ascension, but quite close in declination. Correcting it on one machine will not guarantee that it is correct on another, or that it will be correct in the future. Use {{Location mark}} or similar templates. See 6 Cassiopeiae for an example, although perhaps not the prettiest formatting. Lithopsian (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Gaia DR2 data should be used where applicable, per the preference at SIMBAD.

Updated

Where? The first reference is completely unsuitable. See: {{cite DR2}}. Praemonitus (talk)

• The "space velocity of about 100 km/s" sentence is WP:OR. It needs a proper reference, both for the velocity and the claimed heading. Also, are these heliocentric velocities or peculiar motion?

Removed OR

• "...both components have strong linear trends in the radial velocity measurements, with no detectable curvature, presumably due to each other's orbital motion": Huh? They're in orbit but there's no curved motion? This sentence makes no sense.

The original text refers to a different system. Not Cygni. Fixed it.

• "The system has a net space velocity of 108 km/s[43] relative to the Sun, which results in the high proper motion across the sky": no it doesn't. There are high velocity stars that have negligible proper motion.

I think you got confused between proper motion and Axial precession. The statement is true and verified and astronomers can indeed perceive the high proper motion values even in 18th century.

Mmm, I don't think so. Proper motion depends on distance and the vector of relative motion; not just the magnitude of the space velocity. Praemonitus (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed.

• "is in fact a": 'in fact' is redundant.

Done.

• "61 Cygni A's long-term stability": this should be spectral stability, since it is a variable star.

The variable star refers to the brightness of the star system as seen from earth. This long stability refers to the stability of the orbits of the stars in the system and the subsequent planet formation and support stability.

No, it has to do with the stability of the classification, not the ability to form planets. Please re-read the sentence. Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Piped.

• "(An earlier estimate gave a period of 7.3 years.)": what does this add?

Redundant, removed.

• "this extends out to a distance of only 30 AU": the separation at periapsis is 44 AU, which is less than 2 x 30. Thus the claim that "This is lower than the separation between the two components of 61 Cygni, and so the two most likely do not share a common atmosphere" is somewhat questionable for at least part of their orbit. Do you have a citation for this?

Yes..The Astrophysical Journal as mentioned.

The discussion in the paper is only relevant to the specific time of the study. Praemonitus (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's still cited and verified. Do you feel I should remove it otherwise?

• "solar mass": why not use "Sun's mass" here so that more readers will understand?

Being a very common used term in astronomy and the related topics, it is used. I've piped it to the parent article anyways for more info seeking readers.

• "It has an activity cycle": What is "it"? This is unclear from the prior paragraph.

Fixed.

• "The combination of starspot activity combined with rotation and chromospheric activity is characteristic of a BY Draconis variable"; fix multiple redundances please

Done.

• "distance of only 30 AU": Why "only"? That's a huge distance.

Done.

• "through the local medium": What medium? The interstellar medium?

Done

• "On several occasions": I see only two occasions listed. Are there more?

Done

• The Wulff-Dieter Heintz paragraph makes no sense. The prior announcements were no more than 16 times the mass of Jupiter, whereas the stated lower limit for Heintz (1978) is 60 Jupiter masses. How then are the claims made spurious? This needs to be clarified.

Rewritten

• "where 1 AU is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun": why doesn't this text appear at the first use of AU?

Done

• Some citations have full author lists; others use a single author with "et al.". They should be made consistent.

Done

• Why is "Not to be confused with 16 Cygni..." not included in the Notes section?

Done

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• • The standard way would be
    Not to be confused with 16 Cygni.
    at the top of the page, and not just after the phonetics section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes were made. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Why is Sol Company being used as a reference? I've found that to be inaccurate at times. Praemonitus (talk)

Source review

• Comment: I would use the term "photopollution" rather than "light pollution" as the later is easily confused with "low pollution" but meh.
• Is FN 1 a self-published source?

Yes. Apparently it is. But it is has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is appropriate for the material in question IMO.

This self-published web source is a reflection of primary sources, but may be other out-dated and subject to change. While it could be considered reliable, it should not be used in an FA for the citation of basic factual information. Chase the original (probably peer-reviewed) sources. Similarly, Simbad should not be used as a source for data which is subject to change: it is a portal and simply reflects published information, so it changes over time. Primary sources are usually given by Simbad and so it is easy to include them. Consider VizieR database links where appropriate. Simbad and other "portal", web, or blog type sources can be used for establishing notability or in other cases wgere a secondary or tertiary source is appropriate. All quite picky, but important when an article is being considered for FA. Lithopsian (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• FN 2 is giving me an error about an external link in the publisher.

Maybe because Stellar Database is externally linked. Fixed it now.

• In FN 4, whiy is SIMBAD linked? You don't link ESA or IAU.

It's per Graeme Bartlett's comment. SIMBAD Query Result: V* V1803 Cyg -- Variable of BY Dra type" -- first use of publisher's or authors names should be linked so we should link SIMBAD

• FN 15 seems unnecessary now, given the hatnote

Removed

• FN 23 The link doesn't work for me

Works fine for me. I've added archive from Wayback machine anyways.

• FN 44 The archival date format differs from the others

The cite has been removed now.

• Should journal article titles be in title case? Some are (eg FN 63 to 67); some aren't (eg. FN 42. 43, 45, 58).

All fixed. FN 45 and 58 have the same title in the source material as well.

• Spot checks on FN 5, 26, 36, 45, 51 (nice use of wavelets btw), 67 - all okay

All clear. Thanks for the review. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Lithopsian

• Mixed citation style. The citations are variously in CS1 or CS2 style, some (one?) with the postscript field. A consistent citation style is preferred. As is a consistent location for the definitions, either inline or in the revlist itself. I prefer CS1 and am now a fan of definitions in the reflist for neatness, but either way is acceptable.
• References in the lead. Although not a hard rule, inline citations in the lead always give me the impression that the lead is not properly summarising the body. When the lead is simply a summary of the body, everything that it states is cited elsewhere and the inline references in the lead can be skipped for better legibility.
• See also section. Again, not a hard rule, but if something is relevant to this article it should be mentioned in this article to be complete enough for FA status. Then there is no need for a see also section. There are arguably exceptions, but for example if Barnard's Star is in some way important enough that people should go and also read about it, it should be described in the text why.
• Consistency between the starbox and body. The most obvious example are the apparent magnitudes, variously 5.20, 5.21, 5.2, 6.05, and 6.1. Also consider that both stars are variable and stating a single apparent magnitude as fact could be misleading
• The distances, or at least the parallaxes, to the two components are now known independently (see Gaia DR2) and should be given. The two stars even have separate Hipparcos parallaxes and quoting a single value as if it applies to both stars is just wrong.
• "highest proper motion among visible stars" I'm guessing naked-eye stars? Several stars already described as having higher proper motions are certainly not invisible.
• "by 1917 refined measured parallax differences demonstrated that the separation was significantly less". Less than what?
• "The space velocities of this group of stars range from 105 to 114 km/s relative to the Sun" A space velocity is a vector. Without a direction it is fairly meaningless, certainly not sufficient to establish a co-moving group.
• Periapsis and apoapsis. There are specific terms for these in the context of binary stars: periastron and apastron. Probably better to use those terms although they all redirect to the same place at the moment.
• "short-term flares". Days, weeks, years? I know what short-term means here, but most readers won't.
• "The system has an activity cycle that is much more pronounced than the solar sunspot cycle". It seems likely that this is only referring to component A, not the system as a whole?
• ±. The formatting of error ranges can be kept consistent (with the starbox and within the body) by using the {{val}} template, which also keeps units consistent and attached to the value.

Lithopsian (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reference for 61 Cyg B spectral type in starbox? It is mentioned elsewhere but jars a little when everything else in the starbox has an inline ref.
• Starbox component properties. Starbox observe and starbox detail split the components in two sections, whereas starsbox character and starbox astrometry use slashes or manual line breaks to indicate values for each component. A consistent style might be easier to follow.
• Ref for 61 Cyg B right ascension seems odd. It is different from the declination ref, where they would almost always need to be the same.

Lithopsian (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

On it. Sorry for the delay. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

From Dweller

Well, this is an interesting read and I have no knowledge whatsoever. A couple of questions about the speculation about other planets:

• "as they were unable to detect any evidence of such motion down to six percent of the Sun's mass—equivalent to about 60 times the mass of Jupiter" the second half of this sentence didn't make sense to me. Motion and mass aren't the same thing.
• the last sentence of the section seems to be in the wrong place --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• "although it has been stated by him that 61 Cygni actually corresponds to what he referred to as 85 Cygni in the 1712 edition" - "it has been stated" implies he's modern. Odd use of wording. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Coord note

This has been open a month and has attracted a good deal of commentary but little outright support for promotion. If this is to get over the line then comments need to be actioned promptly and reviewers need to be satisfied with those actions. With that in mind can I ask Graeme and Praemonitus how things look to them now, and Kees if he has more to add. If nothing much changes in the coming week then I think we'll need to archive and have another try some time later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have checked my comments and marked off the addressed items. I was planning to go through all the references to check the citation info. Then actually check the content of the reference to see if the facts are supported. But I only got up to ref 13. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; continuing my review now. Kees08 (Talk) 07:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Tks Graeme and Kees. Unfortunately I don't think we've progressed overall, especially as we haven't heard from the nominator in a couple of weeks, so I'm going to archive this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.