Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs/archive1

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs

edit

List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it was originally submitted 13 years ago in 2005, and only failed due to some minor, since-fixed issues. This list has gone far beyond that and is a very comprehensive and useful index of some of the Sun's nearest neighbors in the Milky Way. Plus, with the release of Gaia DR2, it's most likely 100% complete to the scope described in the lead. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

60-second scan review: The lead has a bunch of grammar problems and is just kind of messy; it really needs to use much more plain language to explain why the definition of "within 5 parsecs" can be fuzzy. I mean, you don't link parsec, go off on arc-seconds and stellar paralax without saying what it is or what it means in this context, it's not until the 3rd paragraph that you say how many stars are in the area even though that's half the point of the list, you start off with "the following two lists which a) they're tables, not lists and b) lists haven't started out like that for over a decade, you don't need to predefine what your sections are going to be about.
Having only recently seen List of nearest exoplanets finally make it through FLC with a lot of back-and-forth on the lead: A large amount of the readership of a list about "what are the nearest stars" is going to have only a passing understanding of astromic terms. The lead needs to be written in a way that guides these readers in to the big points (how many stars/systems, why we count stars that aren't within 5 parsecs but look like their future motion takes them inside the line, etc.) and briefly explains the technical details that go into making those determinations.
As to the 1st table, 2 fast changes: drop the system/star "number" columns because it clutters things up without clearly adding anything, and make the first three columns 'system name'/'star name'/'distance', not 'distance'/'system name'/'star name'. Distance is a property of the star/system, the star is not a property of the distance. Oh, and you can't use just color to distinguish something per WP:ACCESS because color-blind/blind/sight-limited readers can't get it. For stellar type it seems to be decorative and gives the same information as the text in the cell, but the brown/blue coloring isn't. (also, it's not clear what it means even if you can see it- please use a key, like at List of nearest exoplanets. --PresN 02:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also: please add the FLC template onto the list's talk page, or else this FLC will not close correctly when it ends. --PresN 03:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I can probably manage to fix all that by tomorrow. Stay tuned? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've left this at the article's Talk page as well, but I object to removing the rank "#" column. I think it provides needed context. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall:@PresN: Okay, I updated it to the best of my ability/judgement based on your inputs. To add a few things, I support removing the number as it is somewhat redundant to the distance. It could give context, but I feel it is not particularly significant. Additionally, I attempted to clarify some of the definitions and explanations in the lead (please tell me how I did on that) although I feel that the distinction of a list/table and the exact phrasing of the lead is getting slightly into semantics and doesn't affect the actual quality or readability of the article in any major way. Furthermore, while the spectral types are indeed redundant and therefore don't present a significant loss for colorblind users, as someone familiar with color blindness, brown, light beige, and light blue should be distinct enough from one another as to be easily distinct from one another to even 100% color blind people. Again, please let me know if my additions and concerns are reasonable & justified or not. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support renaming that column to something other than "#" (possibly "Rank"? Or "No."?) but I don't support removing it entirely. Also, it looks like the list has been switched to "small text" (e.g. "font-size:90%), probably in attempt to "fit it to a screen", but that should not be avoided as much as possible on WP:ACCESSIBILITY grounds – it is "allowed" in this particular case, as per WP:FONTSIZE, but in general it's not a good idea. In fact, in general, I suspect this entire table is problematic on WP:ACCESS grounds – I'm not sure there's a way to fix that, in this case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • In the first line you give parsecs first and then light years first. You should be consistent. This shows up when you switch back to parsecs in the second paragraph, with the result that you give two different criteria for stars close in the past, 5 light years and then 4.9. Below you say 5.1.
  • You do not define astronomically near past or future in the lead. This should be given.
  • "The second table additionally lists stars" Additionally to what? If to the first list then the word is superfluous and confusing.
  • "Determining which stars fall within the stated range relies on accurate astrometric measurements of their parallax and total proper motions" Presumably proper motion etc only applies to predictions, not to the first list.
  • "only nine exceed 6.5 apparent magnitude, meaning only about 12% of these objects can be observed with the naked eye" I assume you mean that 6.5 is the limit for normal vision, but you should clarify this.
  • "first-magnitude stars" You link to List of brightest stars which does not define first-magnitude.
  • "Gaia DR2 astrometric results" What is Gaia DR2? You also mention 13.8G, and on a quick look I do not see a definition of G in the linked article.
  • If predictions thousands of years ahead are not accurate, what is the point of giving them for 15 million years?
  • " 694 solar-like or cooler stars " What is the point of the qualification "or cooler stars". Why exclude hotter ones?
  • The last paragraph of the lead is not strictly relevant but would be interesting if it did not have so many unnecessary technical details which mean nothing to the layman.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean it as an excuse or a valid reason, but most of your issues are due to nothing but the inevitably convoluted editing and conflicting views of a large number who have written the article, which I am almost scared to touch for fear of reawakening one or both sides. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will not pass FLC unless you are WP:Bold and fix problems. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that other people have been involved in writing it, but this is your FLC- take a deep breath, rewrite the whole lead without worrying about what other people have done before, and then let other editors make tweaks if they want. If they fundamentally disagree with any changes, then they can be discussed/adjusted. --PresN 15:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Exoplanetaryscience: Are you still engaging with this nomination? --PresN 17:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'd gotten onto some other projects and had somewhat forgotten about this. Will see what I can do! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: sorry again about the further delay, I am currently on vacation so am unable to do anything about it, and should have realized I wouldn’t be available earlier. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

exoplanetaryscience you've been editing over the past few weeks, if you don't wish to return to this then please let me know and I'll archive it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I suppose this is starting to seem to the contrary, but I did forget again. Give me a moment and I will try my best to get to it tomorrow morning. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man Alright, updated it to the recommendations. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TompaDompa

I restructured the WP:LEAD to what I consider a better structure, but feel free to change it around again (I did it mostly to get rid of "this is a list of"-like phrasings). I also added symbols with WP:ALT text (and a key) to the first table to make it WP:ACCESSIBILITY-compliant. On to the things that still need fixing:

  1. All images should have WP:ALT text (see also below about whether all of these images should be included at all).
  2. only nine exceed 6.5 apparent magnitude, the dimmest magnitude visible to the naked eye from Earth. – I really think it should be clarified whether this includes the Sun or not.
  3. Of these, 26 have a good probability to come within 1.0 parsec (3.3 light-years) and another 7 within 0.5 parsecs (1.6 light-years), although this number is likely, in reality, much higher, due to the sheer number of stars needed to be surveyed. – this sentence has so many commas that it impedes readability. I'd split it in two, and combine the second half with the following sentence (A star approaching the Solar System 10 million years ago, moving at 200 kilometers per second, would be more than 6,000 light years from the Sun at present day, with hundreds of millions of stars closer to the Sun.), joining the two with a semicolon.
  4. moving at 200 kilometers per second – if this is a typical velocity relative to the Sun, it should be mentioned.
  5. It is currently predicted to pass roughly 19300±3200 Astronomical units from the Sun – in order for the reader to be able to compare this to the other distances on the page, it also needs to be given in light-years. Also, the explicit MOS:UNCERTAINTY makes the word "roughly" pretty redundant. I fixed it myself.
  6. spectroscopic determined radial velocities – I believe the first word should be "spectroscopically".
  7. Many brown dwarfs are not listed by visual magnitude but are listed by near-infrared J band apparent magnitude due to how dim (and often invisible) they are in visible colors. – I take this to mean that all magnitudes followed by "J" are MJ /mJ values and the rest are MV /mV values, but this should really be spelled out explicitly.
  8. Nearest star systems is not a bad caption for the table, but I'd prefer one that stated the inclusion criterion (e.g. "Star systems within 5.0 parsecs (16.3 light-years) of the Sun").
  9. When something is linked in a long sortable table, it should be linked at every instance, not just the first one (because the reader might sort it in a different order and then have difficulty finding the explanatory link).
  10. The only valid reasons for an empty cell is (1) it's in the "Notes and additional references" column, and there are none, or (2) you are going to fill it in, but haven't gotten around to it yet. If the value is not applicable (like the discovery date of the Sun), use {{N/A}}. If the value is unknown, use {{Unknown}}. If the value is known but unavailable, use {{N/A|Unavailable}}. This also applies to cells with "?" or "–" as the only content.
  11. Star # – if this means "Star number", it should say that (per MOS:NUMBERSIGN). Otherwise, it should just say "Star".
  12. For the magnitude columns, I'd just move the reference that verifies almost all values to the respective heading cells (after MV/mV) and only place the reference in the cell if it's some other source. This would reduce the visual clutter.
  13. There are several cells in the "Stellar class" column and a few in the magnitude columns that are apparently unsourced, as is the entirety of the "discovery date" column.
  14. I'm not sure that the bottom row of the first table is necessary, but it should at least match the top row.
  15. The "Maps of nearby stars" section essentially repeats the same information thrice (in greater or lesser detail). I think the rotating 3D image is by far the most helpful one to the reader as it gives a sense of depth, but it would be more helpful if there were a version that didn't have the 3D glasses effect (just the rotation). It also kind of duplicates the information given in the video in the WP:LEAD. I tried removing this section and replacing the video in the lead with the rotating 3D image, and I personally think that was an improvement (though I may have made the image too large for smaller screens).
  16. Over long periods of time, the slow independent motion of stars change in both relative position and in their distance from the observer. is an anacoluthon.
  17. This can cause other currently distant stars to fall within a stated range, which may be readily calculated and predicted using accurate astromertic measurements of parallax and total proper motions, along with spectroscopic determined radial velocities. – "fall within a stated range" is very clunky, and "astrometric" is misspelled.
  18. I'd use "predict" for stars that will be close in the future, and "calculate" for stars that were close in the past.
  19. The "Distant future and past encounters" section shouldn't contain both a table and a bullet list. The bullet list should be converted to prose and cleaned up.
  20. Examples of notable predicted stellar encounters falling within 5 parsecs from the Sun appear in the list below. A summary of the more likely candidates include: is a very "this is a list of" phrasing, which should be avoided.
  21. Scholz's star and its companion brown dwarf is thought to have passed should be plural.
  22. Gamma Microscopii approximately 3.8 million years ago has been predicted to approach as close as 6 light-years from the Sun. badly needs copyediting. I'd consider removing it altogether considering both the qualifier that comes later and the relatively large distance.
  23. The Gliese 710 / HIP 89825 entry should be copyedited for length. Previous predictions in particular aren't relevant.
  24. With the release of Gaia DR2, it was determined that HIP 85605 is actually a much more distant 1790±30 light-years away, and as such will not be passing remotely close to the Sun at any point in time. – in that case, this entry should be removed.
  25. Known stars that have passed or will pass within 5.1 light-years of the Sun within ±3 million years: shouldn't have a colon at the end, and "5.1 light-years" seems very arbitrary to me. I'd go with 1.5 parsecs (4.9 light-years) (which would still include all the current entries).
  26. There are a bunch of WP:Redlinks in the second table. I'd remove those links.
  27. It should be made clearer for the Alpha Centauri AB entry that where two values are given, one is for A and one for B (I think the easiest solution would be writing "A:" and "B:" before the respective values).
  28. HIP# should either be spelled out or use the {{abbr}} template.
  29. For the entries that do not have a Hipparcos number, the {{N/A}} template should be used, not just an empty cell.
  30. The use of tildes (presumably to denote "approximately") breaks the sorting for the column, and I'm not sure if it's WP:MOS-compliant.
  31. The "External links" section needs a clean-up.

TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

exoplanetaryscience, comments have been here unaddressed for nine days, do you intend to get to them or should I archive this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand pinging me to check in, but I did address several of the comments here on the 24th as you'll see on the page, and additionally have not had much time to edit in general besides finishing up older projects. I'm still working on this. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2018 (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_list_candidates/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs/archive1&oldid=859894496"