Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Musca/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 Ian Rose 08:01, 1 April 2014 [1].

Musca

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the only official constellation depicting an insect...Musca the fly...this was enjoyable to work on with lots of interesting stars and connections. I feel it is the equal of several other constellations I have buffed to FAC. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN6: publisher?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest truncating GBooks links after page
never found out how..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oops...conformed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments Meets standard, two comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some overlinking, including Petrus Plancius twice in one sentence in lead, please run dup links detector
removed dups Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea of the size of Alpha Muscae?
parameters of Alpha added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from ST
  • I think it would probably be best if the first sentence of the first paragraph of the "Stars" section were moved to the "History" section.
done - I think you're right - it goes better further up the article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • About LP 154-141: "It is considered a good candidate to look for Jupiter-like planets." Why?
this is a little tricky as to how much information to put in the constellation article as a teaser in some ways, and elaborating in the daughter article. Essentially as a nearby and relatively hot and heavy white dwarf - the latter two points mean that it has formed more recently and the overall system was a more massive and hence short-lived one, and hence was of cosmologically more recent origin (I presume this is because the system then should have higher metallicity and hence more likely to have planets, but I can't find that stated in the source article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being located in the plane of the Milky Way, I'm surprised at the dearth of deep-sky objects. Are there really no more interesting ones in this entire constellation?
don't recall seeing anthing else and it is a small constellation, will make another pass over literature...found tow more planetary nebs - will add a bit added so not so listy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that the X-ray binary 2S 1254-690 isn't mentioned at all; it's certainly notable and interesting.
just made a stub - now to do a little reading to summarise. got it in now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with SY Muscae, an interesting symbiotic star.
just made a stub - now to do a little reading to summarise. added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all the complaints I have; everything else looks good to me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks good. Here's a few items that need attention:
  • "Theta Muscae is a remote triple star system...": Unnecessary vagueness; they are all remote systems.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tricky that - the original reference was about the south polar constellations of which Musca is one. I found another ref which was a bit better. Technically something really low above the horizon is only visible if I am on the ocean or in a really flat location, so maybe 35S is more realistic than 25S for practical circumpolarity...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's only going to be low on the horizon for part of the Earth's rotation, and then only at night for around half of the year. Also, you can view the horizon from a hill or mountain top, even in rough terrain. But I can understand your point about practicality, since it is a faint constellation. Maybe if you had a good source concerning star altitude and limitations on naked eye visibility? Otherwise, 'practicality' may be relying too much on personal judgment. Praemonitus (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that's a good idea - will see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Damn - after a frustrating search I can't find anything that qualifies the statement to make it correct, or find a correct one. Hence the fact that the constellation is not prominent enough to be considered a landmark (i.e. you don't really use it to find anything) means that I have dropped the sentence on the basis that the fact is not notable enough to have been discussed or written anywhere...(i.e. sources talk of groups of constellations in the area being circumpolar rather than musca) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'proper motion','milliarcseconds', 'overcontact binary' should be wiki-linked.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TU Muscae is a remote binary star system located around 15,500 light-years away..."; remote is unnecessary here.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The white dwarf accumulates material from its companion star on its accretion disc until it erupts..."; that description is ambiguous and, I think, not quite correct. Matter flows from the companion to the accretion disk orbiting the white dwarf, and then down to the surface. It's the latter accumulation that undergoes runaway fusion.
yep - goofed there. reworded now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunyaev et al is missing a year and the journal name is not spelled out.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grady el al is also missing a year.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks a little bare. I suggest throw in another image; maybe an old star chart or the Hourglass Nebula, for example.
I chucked in a couple Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks FA ready. Praemonitus (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Coemgenus:

  • Looks like another quality article. I have just a few questions:
  • In "History", you write "They assigned four stars to the constellation in their Malay and Madagascan vocabulary..." I'm not sure what this means. Did they use Malay names for the stars, or do you mean they wrote a book of Malay and Madagascan languages in which the stars were discussed, or something else altogether?
It means they happened to slot the information into a book that was otherwise this dictionary, the names and description had nothing to do with Malay and Madagascan otherwise. Would it help to add wording to clarify...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think some clarification would be helpful; it confused me, anyway. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up removing the dictionary bit as (ultimately) it is of little relevance exactly where it appeared...and it was easier to leave it thus than as reporting that it happened to be in a Malay and Madagascan vocabulary even though it had nothing to do with either language... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
OK, works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French name was retained by Jean Fortin in 1776..." might read better as "Jean Fortin retained the French name in 1776..."
activated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • First Stars image caption shouldn't end in period
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the lead caption "list of stars in Musca"?
Funny - hadn't noticed that before but all constellation infoboxes have that layout. Might be worth discussing and have a bot go through (once we figure out what a better word is as I usually think of a list as a linear thing not a map...and just checking it is not editable from the article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Apis.jpg: source doesn't give enough information to confirm the validity of the given licensing tag (particularly as given date is date of upload rather than creation); also need US PD tag and resolution of the big red tag error. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the tag on commons but have have removed it pending further information coming to light - just spent a while trying to look online to see which 18th century atlas it came from and can't. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Minor things:

  • In some places we have light-years and in others light years. Choose one.
all hyphenated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...it is cooling and expanding along the Red Giant Branch, having left the main sequence". Although two main sequence star types are wikilinked, the article actually has no wikilink in it for "main sequence" as a concept. Also is there a link available for Red Giant Branch? And if "main sequence" is not capitalised, how come Red Giant Branch is?
found Stellar_evolution#Red-giant-branch_phase - and lowercased now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "although further examination of the disk profile indicate it might be a more massive object such as a brown dwarf or more than one planet." That should read "indicates" or "may indicate", depending on whether the research has already been done - check the source and tweak.
it is "indicates" as it pertains to the calculations and findings performed in that study. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is "1,750" and then later "4000". Decide whether or not to separate 4-digit numbers.
all four digit ones de-comma'ed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2014 (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/Musca/archive1&oldid=1145621237"