Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corona Borealis/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2015 [1].

Corona Borealis

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article recently had a nomination that stalled with two supports followed by no activity for a month. This sometimes happens if the prose is on the unengaging side. To that end I asked some editors to take a look at the prosee, and Dr. Blofeld, hamiltonstone and Eric Corbett (thankfully) obliged...so here we are. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks in great condition, can't imagine it being a better article on the subject. A worthy candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There were a few things I didn't understand in the previous version, but that's all been sorted now. Eric Corbett 12:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx both/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed. Thank you Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks good. Here are a few concerns that you might want to address:
  • 'HD 144579' in the infobox is in need of a reference.
I've addressed this. Praemonitus (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "little smaller (0.9) times the diameter of the Sun": the times should be inside the parentheses.
oops, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is actually a complex multiple star system": this is redundant since the article already said it is a multiple star system.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "T Coronae Borealis is a binary star with a red-hued giant primary and a small blue secondary"; the secondary is necessarily a white dwarf, not a small blue star.
yup, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oops, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Omicron Coronae Borealis is another K-type clump giant": 'clump giant' needs to be linked to Red clump. Where was the previous clump giant?
no idea now, linked and "another" removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "XO-1 is a magnitude 11 yellow dwarf star": this is switching terminology. Is there a reason for changing from the previous mode of listing the classification? Likewise with "a Solar twin, yellow dwarf around".
a lazy cut and paste - aligned them now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the cluster's center is a large elliptical galaxy containing a supermassive black hole." Almost every galaxy contains a SMBH; how is this one different? If not, then perhaps list the estimated mass as well.
"most powerful" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of sources say that the Arabic name means "The Broken Dish".
sources aren't great for this, but added anyway, also found another Amerind story Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The constellation appeared several times in the 1997 film Contact. It was apparently a favorite constellation of astronomer Carl Sagan, on whose book the film was based.
I can't find a Reliable Source for this, would love to add it though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, unfortunately. Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references section appears to be in good shape. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This does not appear semi-circular to me
.
  • "Its Latin name, inspired by its shape, means "northern crown", as its brightest stars form a semicircular arc" - ummm, some expansion here would be appreciated. Crowns are not semi-circular, and although I can kind of guess what he was going for, it's not entirely obvious. Perhaps these and the other descriptions should be collected in that opening para?
I've not seen a source comment on the problem of it being an incomplete circle. I guess I think of it like that too, i.e. you'd only see part of it if it was on a person's head. Juggling sections can be tricky in these articles as the mythology is often a bit disparate WRT the astronomy. Nothing much in the heavens really looks much like what the constellations are supposed to depict..I guess we're all used to that... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a significant number of duplicate links in the article. This is very useful.
I left some of the star names as it seemed odd not to link them where they are being talked about. Have removed others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of redundant cites, where the same cite appears several times in a row in the same para. EG 32. This produces visual clutter for no benefit. A tool for this would be useful...
If I see some in a row I will combine and add a commented out note, like <!-- cites three previous sentences --> so that I can trim refs. Annoyingly those '32's have another ref in between.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps sections the extrasolar planets? It would break up the page a bit and I don't see any downsides.
yeah, the stars isa big section...done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not terribly happy with the lede, which jumps around a lot, and still fails to explain the name. How about something along the lines of"

Corona Borealis /kɵˈroʊnə bɒriˈælɨs/ is a small constellation in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. It is one of the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy, and remains as one of the 88 modern constellations. Its brightest stars form a semicircular arc in the lower right of the modern constellation boundary.
Its Latin name, inspired by its shape, means "northern crown". In classical mythology Corona Borealis generally represented the crown given by the god Dionysus to the Cretan princess Ariadne and set by him in the heavens. Other cultures likened the pattern to a circle of elders, an eagle's nest, a bear's den, or even a smokehole. Ptolemy also listed a southern partner, Corona Australis, which has a similar pattern.

I believe that is much more clear than the current lede, and easier to read as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yup, I'll pay that and thus adopted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hamiltonstone. I made some comments after the unsuccessful FAC, in response to a request from Cas, and he has followed up all of those. Pick-ups and suggestions from Praemonitus and Maury all useful, and I'm supportive of the revised article. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great stuff. The content is all there and the prose manages to be direct and informative without monotony. It'd be nice to have a higher resolution wide-field photo of the constellation, but that's just a passing thought. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This looks very thorough to me, and nothing stands out. Very nicely done, and I suspect as comprehensive as there is freely available. (I'm pleased to say I actually understood most of this!) Just a few minor points which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prose is necessarily dry in places, and probably little can be done. Maybe we could avoid a few of the "X is a YY star" structures, and starting three consecutive sentences in the lead with "It... Its... Its..." makes for uninspiring reading! But this is not a big issue as such.
just looking at that again. Know what you mean but extremely hard to rejig any other way.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Corona Australis" is mentioned in the lead, but not in the main body.
added to body now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five star systems have been found to have Jupiter-sized exoplanets.": Rather than say "found", is there a better word to use, such as "calculated" or something suitably scientific?
I liked "found" as it was a one-syllable alternative to "discovered", which I think is slightly unwieldy. I feel a bit cautious just saying "Five star systems have Jupiter-sized exoplanets." as it strikes me as a little too certain/dogmatic.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chinese astronomers considered nine stars to make up the asterism": Considered seems an odd word choice here.
changed to "deemed" (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a minor point, should the structure of the lead follow that of the article? We begin the lead with the mythology, but that is the last section of the main body. Feel free to ignore this one, though.
I know what you mean - lead has been difficult to flow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keilana added them - I suspect the translations were not in the source... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Makemson doesn't give the translations a lot of the time, unfortunately. These were some where she just gave names without translations. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate and/or wikilink states
hmm, unless i am missing something they should all be unlinked and unabbreviated... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN6. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
aah, fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't create pseudoheadings using semicolons - use regular bolding or regular heading markup instead
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date for FN21?
Kaler is inconsistent with including his dates on some of his webpages. He also does not have a star of the week archive that would help me pinpoint dates either... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to be a formatting problem in FN31
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN33: work is the index, not AAVSO - that's the publisher. Same with all other VSX refs
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you spell out or abbreviate AAVSO (could do so on first occurrence only)
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
all duly trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- will promote, pls just check for duplinks and lose what mightn't be necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 16 May 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/Corona_Borealis/archive2&oldid=1136098342"