Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canis Minor/archive1

< 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 promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:33, 10 February 2013‎ [1].

Canis Minor

edit
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC) + Keilana (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's lookin' pretty darn spiffy. It's had a good workout at Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1 and got a good run at its good article nom too. Thanks all. So, me and Keilana are here and waiting to fix stuff to make it perfickt. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB: A wikicup nomination. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 99of9

edit
  • "Canis Minor culminates (reaches its highest point in the sky) each year at 9 p.m. on 16 April." The source looks like it has chosen 9pm as an arbitrary time you might want to look for stars, and then found the day on which it will culminate at that time. So I guess there's nothing amazingly special about this date, since the 10pm answer would be different. --99of9 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of something about when it culminates or is best visible - it is arbitrary which value - midnight is often used but it is late for kids doing astronomy which is I guess why 9PM is used. I have no idea why the infobox says what it says. I will look for some more sources on the issue Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ian Ridpath and Wil Tirion's Monthly Sky Guide has good info on what's visible when. I have access to it so I can take a look at some point in th next couple days. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found an hour for the library and Monthly Sky Guide says it's most prominent in mid-February at 10 PM (aka 9 PM in late February & early March). It doesn't say much more about CMi other than implying that it's boring. If you think that's an ok standard, I can put them prominence in (from pp.21-22, 7th ed., ISBN 978-0-521-68435-4). If not, I can keep looking. Let me know what you think. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that sounds good to add. Most folks think CMi is pretty boring :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update - have added best viewing months in evening sky, and corrected bodgy web ref (I think the site must have been hacked..) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done This seems fine now. --99of9 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Will play around with an image editor later. Made this so far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep it in SVG (I recommend Inkscape), it's arbitrarily resizeable and others will be able to improve on it or translate it more easily. But this isn't Commons, so I won't count this against the candidate :). --99of9 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the notation right, the text also refers to number 8, which is not labelled. Also it would help to mark the positions of the dim stars you discuss in the lead which aren't on the diagram (e.g. Luyten's, NGC 2359, Canis-Minorids). Maybe in a different colour if they're not visible to the eye.--99of9 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - they are good things to add. Will see what I can add via sourcing. I am a neophyte with image files but have a look at inkscape and see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've added which stars I can add via visual representations in sources (to date). I am worried the map will get a little..err..busy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not much of a star guy, but "a small constellation in the northern hemisphere's winter sky" and "The Wardaman people of the Northern Territory in Australia gave Procyon and Gomeisa the names" don't seem to make much sense together. I take it this constellation is not *only* in the northern hemisphere's sky? --99of9 (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's true. It's technically in the southern sky, below the celestial equator, but it appears in the southern portion of the sky during Northern Hemisphere winter. I've tried to gloss that better in the text. I rewrote that a bit, does it make more sense to you now? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think discussion of the Southern Hemisphere should at least match the one mention of the fleeting appearance in the Northern. For example, is it visible all year in the Southern? --99of9 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
given it lies on the celestial equator, it won't be visible all the time from anywhere populous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But visible once a day all year from most of the southern hemisphere? --99of9 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aaah no. they go backwards, so visible in mid-evening over Jan/March...then earlier and then disappearign and then reappearing in morning sky mid year. Trying to find a ref for reappearing in early morning sky to add. Evening bit added. Mid year period where it sets at sunset and reappears before dawn added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a typo/formatting error. Showers are named either for their constellation or nearest star (hence it is "11" and not "II"). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done OK, I see it was correct on the PDF scan of the original 1970 paper. I've fixed your citation #59. --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Done" template removed, please see WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I have been suitably discouraged, so I will do it with markup. --99of9 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC), sources and authors provided. Quick comment:

Support and comments Just two queries

  • and the next closest stellar neighbour to our solar system after Procyon — is that referring to the stars of the constellation, or of all the stars?
Just those within the constellation - I might reword that... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN3: what kind of source is this?
a very old book..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment (temporary) - another fine constellation article. Remaining suggestions have been addressed (did some CEs and minor tweaks). GermanJoe (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While i don't appreciate the recent trend of reviewers judging each others' contributions (this "judgement" should be solely done by the delegates), i'll have to change to "comment" just for now. Keilana added so much great content (thanks for that) and Casliber and others did more tweaks, so i don't feel comfortable to support the new version without another complete read. I am sure, the article can make it to FA nonetheless. GermanJoe (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sasata

edit

Support I've reread the article now and am happy it meets the FA criteria. The prose reads more smoothly, and Keilana's additions have made the text more interesting (to me). Just one small thing: can we include page numbers and publisher locations in citations 61 & 75? Sasata (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose. I'm finding problems that indicates the above supporters haven't examined the article with the thoroughness required for FAC-level scrutiny (sorry guys). Additionally, the last point I've raised suggests to me a closer audit of the sources/spotcheck would be beneficial. Have only gone through half of the article; will be back with more comments later. Sasata (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pages added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was included as a pattern of two stars" how is it possible to make a "pattern" with only two points?
My thinking was the diagonal position and the brightness of one compared with the other gave it an appearance specific enough to call it a pattern...the more specific word is Asterism (astronomy) - question is, does it add any meaning over the broadly understood "pattern Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "asterism" because it's more specific and doesn't imply more than 2 stars the way "pattern" seems to. Just my 2 cents. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in asterism now Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its name is Latin for "smaller dog" in contrast to Canis Major, the larger dog" the later article text does not explicitly say that these names translate to "smaller" and "larger". Why is smaller dog given in quotes whereas larger dog isn't?
    • They should both be in quotes as I've done, Latin minor and major directly translate to "smaller" or "lesser" and "larger" or "greater". Do you think it should be stated explicitly later in the text? Keilana|Parlez ici 18:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canis Minor contains only two stars brighter than fourth magnitude" is magnitude different then apparent magnitude? If so, it should be linked
apparent magnitude is generally abbreviated to magnitude Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fourth magnitude, Procyon", "9th magnitude red dwarf", "10th magnitude nebula" -> need to be consistent with ordinal/numeral display (audit throughout); shouldn't the latter two be hyphenated?
  • companion should be linked
companion star is just a link to Binary star - will think about what to do here. Linked as "companion" mentioned right up top in bold... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • shouldn't the lead mention how many stars there are in total?
this is a tricky question - there are two bright stars, 8 with Bayer designations, 14 with Flamsteed designations, and several more that are just visible to the naked eye with HD numbers and variable designations. Visibility depends on conditions, so is also a bit tricky to define, though stars to around magnitude 6 or 6.5 are the faintest. The fainter the benchmark, the more stars that can be counted. Books don't generally list Bayer or Flamsteed star tallies - "Two bright stars and a bunch of other stars" reflects waht the sources say really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, I agree, but I think it's a good idea to also mention the Bayer/Flamsteed stars with a sentence, so the reader doesn't assume off the bat that the only naked-eye stars are Procyon and Gomeisa. I added a sentence to the lead with the numbers, feel free to remove/tweak at your discretion. (Ditto for reviewers, random passers-by, etc.) I just want to make the constituents of the constellation as clear as possible as early as possible. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link meteor shower
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There text sandwiching in the history and mythology section; any chance that historical picture can be moved?
I tried but it is tricky with all the varying screen sizes folks use these days. Tempted to ditch one image altogether Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is "MASH.TAB.BA"? Is this a transliteration of Mesopotamian script? Should it be italicized as a foreign-language word? What are the Three Stars Each tablets? If they are some important historical artifact, could they be red-linked?
MASH.TAB.BA is a transliteration of Mesopotamian; the convention is to not italicize it as far as I know. The Three Stars Each tablets are quite important in the history of Babylonian astronomy (see Babylonian astronomy#Three Stars Each). I've redlinked it and will hopefully write something up eventually. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FOREIGN seems to suggest that this foreign-language phrase (as well as MUL.APIN and DAR.LUGAL) should be italicized. I think the MUL.APIN article incorrectly lacks the italics; notice it's italicized at Babylonian star catalogues. The source used to cite this information (Rogers 1998) is somewhat inconsistent: MUL.APIN has italics when discussed in prose, but not when given in a table. Sasata (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
italicised than Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • please give years for the alternatives names proposed for the constellation, it helps give historical context
    • Unfortunately, Allen doesn't give a date for exactly when the alternative names were proposed. I chose to insert the century they were active instead, I hope that's enough context. If not, I can find copies of the specific star maps in my university library at some point; I think they have a bunch of historical star atlases hiding in the old stacks. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Apocrypha, celestial chart
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • italicize Nánhé, Beihe? Were the diacritics forgotten on the second mention of Nanhe?
woops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "floodwarers" floodwaters?
woops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what do the various Polynesian names mean? Hiro, Kopu-nui-o-Hiro, Vena, Puanga-hori, and Ana-tahua-vahine-o-toa-te-manava are trivial additions otherwise
I don't have that book with me anymore so will have to order it from another library. I do know that the definitions were given. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They have all been added now, sorry for the delay - ILL takes a few days. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • italicize Magum and Gurumana?
italicised Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link gum tree, Northern Territory, Northern Hemisphere
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canis Minor is most prominent at 10 PM local time during mid-February." what is "local time" here? Anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere? Should be a non-break space in there too.
removed as I realise "local time" is meaningless. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is then seen earlier in the evening until July, when it visible after sunset before setting itself, and rising in the morning sky before dawn." something's wrong with the grammar here
woops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1922, is 'CMi'." double quotes were used previously for word-as-word subjects
conformed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the seventh brightest star" hyphenate
  • "Its name means "before the dog" or "preceding the dog" in Greek" shouldn't this be grouped with the similar etymology material in "History and mythology"? Greek/Ancient Greek should be linked earlier.
I've de-linked. I'm not sure about moving. This note is about Procyon (rather than Canis Minor) and its attributes and location in the constellation (and surrounds). I feel it goes well here and breaks up the section which can get listy with all the stars' attributes and distances etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
masses of Procyon A & B added Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the source Kambič (2009) says Procyon is the 8th-brightest star (not 7th, given in article). Is this fact disputed?
  • "K3-III C,[28] Fe-0.5 which lies around 398 light-years (122 parsecs) away. Its colour is obvious when seen through binoculars.[27]" I went to the cited source to see if I could figure out what "Fe-0.5" meant, and discovered neither this nor the "398 light years" fact are actually in this source
aaah, this one is understandable - SIMBAD is a bit like mycobank WRT it being a consensus-type page on latest star stats. ref 27 should be at the end of the sentence and not sure where "Fe-0.5" came from WRT this star (it is a qualifier for how much iron is in spectrum but not AFAICR, Gamma CMi is not particularly notable so this normally wouldn't be notated). ref 28 only refers to the colour thru binoculars. Just need to double check the history as the copyediting might have done something else inadvertently with the refs. NB: Light years are obtained from SIMBAD by getting (1000/parallax (mas) x 3.26), which equals the calculated distance in light years. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give Bode's full name on first mention (which, as far as I can tell, is in the image caption; what year is the Uranographia? Is this a book, and if so should it be italicized?
done, year added...yes it's sort of a star chart/illustrated book thing Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HD 66141 is an old star which has evolved" which->that; how old is old? This seems to be the only star where the age is mentioned, but it's given without any context.
It has exhausted its hydrogen and been expanding and cooling - I'd love to add this bit but the source doesn't discuss in this paper. It's also unusual that a giant star has a planet...but the source doesn't make this comment.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was mistakenly named 13 Puppis" Why? How?
celestial coordinates were recorded incorrectly, it teleported into a neighbouring constellation of Puppis...and then folks realised it where it should have been....I spelt it out a bit, should I add more? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "semi-regular variable" is there a link for this (or even just "variable"?)
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with measured periods of 27.7, 143.3 and 208.3 days" sorry, I'm an astronomical newbie, but why does it have three periods? Are there three things it's rotating around?
it's a pulsating star which brightens and fades..and these pulsations occur in the ranges noted. I will reword to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mira-type variable which ranges" which->that
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The WZ Sagittae-type dwarf nova VSX J074727.6+065050 flared up to magnitude 11.4 over January and February 2008 before dropping eight magnitudes to around 19.5." why would it do such a thing? How long did it take to get back down?
it is a white dwarf in a close binary system which accumulates material from its companion until a critical mass is reached and then...ka-blammm ..it brightens. SOme
  • "pulsating stars which have been used" which->that
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BI is of spectral type F2 with an apparent magnitude varying around 9.19,[50] with a period of approximately 2.91 hours." with … with …
  • "Fainter still is PSS 544-7, an eighteenth-magnitude red dwarf around 20% the mass of the sun around 685 light-years (210 parsecs) away." all of a sudden, the magnitude is given in ordinal format (inconsistent with previous); around… around …
  • link galactic disk (should it be UK spelling "disc"?)
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be brutally honest: the entire "Stars" subsection is (IMNSHO) repetitive and dull. Rather than trying to list the spectral type, luminosity class, variable type, period, magnitude range, and distance of every star in Canis Minor as prose, would it not be easier to summarize this in a table? As a reader I would appreciate being able to quickly compare these variables in a tabular format. The adjoining text could be saved for interesting exceptions or mentioning things that don't easily fit into a table. Again, I'm not used to reading astronomy articles, so perhaps I'm way off base here, but I'd like to hear other opinions about this.
aaah, this section isn't comprehensive by any means, and we also have List of stars in Canis Minor. I'll see if we can find some facts to sprinkle through and spruce up or rejig. Having just re-read it, I think it can be rejigged to flow better and be more engaging. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yet it is not blessed with deep-sky objects." is this NPOV? Is it a blessing to have deep-sky objects? Why couldn't it equally be a curse?
Sorry, was getting a bit flowery (floury?). rejigged now Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William Herschel recorded four objects in his Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars" perhaps mention the publication year for this book
year added Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a collection of fifteen unrelated stars" fifteen->15
I wrote it out as fifteen because of the similar discussion of "five" two sentences previous...or are the two far enough apart you wouldn't bother aligning them in number-as-word? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link nebula (also in lead)
done x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approximate magnitude of 10, that is 10,000 light-years" that->which
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nebula is shaped by HD 56925, an unstable Wolf-Rayet star embedded in the nebula." tweak wording to remove repetition of word nebula
dup. removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "estimated at 205 million light years distance" for some reason the "light years" starting from here are no longer hyphenated
aah, I wasn't using the template. Manually fixed now and hyphens added Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a diameter of 80 thousand light years." If a galaxy is lenticular, is the diameter measured the short or long way?
the long axis. I would have thought people would assume it was the long axis...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Named as a single object by William Herschel" His first name was already given last paragraph
there are two famous Herschels (father and son - William and John), and they worked on similar material.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is actually a pair of galaxies which appear to be close by and interacting with each other." which->that; "close by" what? (could be worded better)
--> near-adjacent Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 11 Canis-Minorids are a meteor shower" is the singular/plural construction correct here?
As far as I can tell - I can't see another way - the verb agrees with the subject (which is plural, and all showers are described this way. The shower is then a collective noun) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canis Minor was also given the name DAR.LUGAL ("the star which stands behind it") in the MUL.APIN, representing a rooster." I'm confused about the rooster part: does DAR.LUGAL translate to ""the star which stands behind it"" but actually means rooster?
  • "The same constellation was called tarlugallu in Akkadian astronomy." Does "the same constellation" here refer to Canid minor or to Lepus (mentioned most recently)?
  • "Ptolemy only identified two stars" -> "Ptolemy identified only two stars" better?
  • "septentrionalis ("Northerly", for its position …" not sure why Northerly is capitalized (other translated words are not)
  • "included a diagram of the with a canine figure superimposed." of the what?
  • "as part of both Canis Minor - the collar of the dog - and its modern home." either spaced endashes, or unspaced emdashes; not hyphens
  • "called ash-Shi'ra ash-Shamiya, the "Syrian Sirius" and Gomeisa was called ash-Shira al-Ghamisa, the Sirius with bleary eyes." why is Syrian Syrus in quotes but not Sirius with bleary eyes?
  • "Syrian Sirius" is a direct quote from the source, 'the Sirius with bleary eyes' is a paraphrase (original was "Sirius who has bleared eyes"). I can change "The Sirius with bleary eyes" to "Sirius who has bleared eyes" if you'd like, I just liked the flow of the paraphrase better. Keilana|Parlez ici 07:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "17th century German poet" Don't start sentence with a number; hyphenation required
  • "Neighboring Korea" -> Neighbouring
  • is the Red Bird different than the Vermillion Bird?
  • "Hiro and Kopu-nui-o-Hiro, meaning "twist as a thread of coconut fiber"" They both mean the same thing? The first looks to be a shortened form of the second.
  • I screwed that up. Makemson is annoyingly vague. At one point she gives Hiro ("twist as a thread of coconut fiber") as the name for Hiro and Kopu-nui-o-hiro ("great paunch of Hiro") as the name for Canis Minor. Then, at the end of the book, in an appendix, she cites both Hiro and Kopu-nui-o-hiro as names for Procyon. My inclination is to assume the appendix was an oversight and cite the detailed definition she gives in the body of the book. I've put this information in the article for now but if you have a different idea for how we should go about this, I'd love to hear. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 07:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shepherds note 6 constellations" 6->six
  • the text says the "declination coordinates are between 13.22° and −0.36°", while the infobox says it is +5°; why the discrepancy?
  • The infobox is taken from Bakich 1995, who gives the center of CMi as 5°, likely derived from the "stick figure" of the constellation, which makes sense - the constellation as defined covers more area than just Proycon and Gomeisa. The full range in the text comes from the official IAU boundaries. Both are valid. Keilana|Parlez ici 07:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AU should be linked at first occurrence (and perhaps spelled out the first time?)
  • Earth should be linked earlier (if at all), and is duplicate-linked; actually, there's several duplicate links that should be culled
  • please give full page ranges for journal articles (but still indicate specific pages for citations where required), and check for consistent application of title/sentence case
all refs title case now - will look into other - had no internet access all day :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, Keilana, we do it like this with square brackets - it is generally done when you have a large journal article - I am not sure when the cutoff is but when I've had one of around 100 pages or more I've done it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, that's spiffy, thanks! I'll definitely use that for articles where I'm not using {{sfn}}...I got so used to having specific pages in the footnotes and the whole range in the bibliography that I never learned how to do it with cite templates. Now I know! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 21:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FAC instructions-- "done" templates removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (again, all listed points improved), did some more polishing and have a few remaining minor issues:

  • history "The stars of Canis Minor were incorporated into the set of stars associated with the day designated "Water", which also included some stars of Orion and Gemini." ==> The whole sentence could use some rephrasing: ... associated ... designated ... reads clumsy. What was designated, the set of stars or the day? All sub-clauses probably belong to "the set of stars", but the structure could be a lot more straightforward (maybe use two sentences).
I had a go at simplifying it. Might think on this one.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable features "... who claimed an association with the comet D/1917 F1 Mellish.[76] However, recent research indicates that this connection may not exist. The Canis Minorids are related to the December Monocerotids and November Orionids." ==> Probably too complex to explain everything in detail, but this is too vague for a non-astronomer. What kind of "association"? What "recent research"? How reliable is the newest finding (does "indicates" imply some remaining doubts here)? What kind of relation is meant in the last sentence? In short i think, this paragraph assumes too much background knowledge about meteors from the reader. Try to replace association, research, connection and related with more specific terms, if possible and add 1-2 very brief details.
tired now - will read afresh in the morning and have a think... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be hard, the sources I have are super vague. I'm really busy today - about to run out the door - but will try and take a look tonight. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
had a go. the other too showers are somewhat extraneous to the story and have been removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...around..." => 20 occurrences of "around" throughout the article. Maybe some of them can be trimmed, where non-precise numbers are expected and obviously used.
Agree, and this is tricky. I've just ditched some of the less uncertain ones, and changed a couple of others to "about" and/or "approximately"....will see if I can ditch a couple more... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general comment (not related to this particular FA). I am not sure, keeping history and mythology on top of the main article is the best solution. For constellations with a long history and mythology the reader has to dig through a lot of info, until the first "hard facts" are presented in "Characteristics". Of course "history and mythology" is important as well, but maybe characteristics and star data should have higher priority (probably worth discussing in WP:ASTRONOMY, if not already done). GermanJoe (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we moved it for one of the other FACs (from bottom to top) in response to discussion there. I wasn't expecting Keilana to turn up quite so much I suppose. Sequentially it makes sense but does push down the 'meat' of the article somewhat. I do like to strive for uniformity in headings and layout between articles in the same set (i.e. constellations here), so would prefer all articles either have the history at the top or all at the bottom. I wonder if having a lead which at least touches on star data makes up for this in some way. Trying to get a consensus over at the wikiproject page seems prudent..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry about that. :P One solution I think we implemented on Andromeda (constellation) was to merge Characteristics with History and mythology. It made a lot of sense for Andromeda because its stars got shuffled around a lot in the 1700s, then were solidified in 1923. I'm not sure how seamless that would be for Canis Minor but it's an option. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:23, 4 February 2013 (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/Canis_Minor/archive1&oldid=1144391351"