Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynx (constellation)/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 via FACBot (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2016 [1].

Lynx (constellation) edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another constellation..but at least it's in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere so Juliancolton and Courcelles can actually see it...though the light pollution might make it really difficult :P. Anyway, I started buffing it for POTD and just kept going. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: It's a wikicup nomination...

Comments from Graeme Bartlett edit

Some issues that should be easy to fix:

  • The "The GAPS programme with HARPS-N@TNG" reference has a slight mangle in its name. It should be "The GAPS programme with HARPS-N at TNG". Also in this the authorlist looks to be truncated, so perhaps would have "et al" appearing.
Heh, interesting conversion to '@' - fixed now. Fixed authorlist Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Long-Term VRI Photometry of Small-Amplitude Red Variables. I. Light Curves and Periods" reference should have full page numbers: 983–996
In these cases I always use last two digits only. I can't recall where I saw it written on wikipedia, but aligns with Chicago Manual of Style. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Periodicities of the light curve of the semiregular variable star Y Lyncis" reference should have full page numbers: 321–328
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Validation of the New Hipparcos Reduction" reference should have full page numbers: 653–654
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders: From Novice to Master Observer" reference should have full page numbers: 302–307
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 0.5Mj transiting exoplanet WASP-13b" reference should have full page numbers: 391–94
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep Sky Objects. Amherst,reference should have page numbers 168–169
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H I Imaging Observations of Superthin Galaxies. II. IC 2233 and the Blue Compact Dwarf NGC 2537." has extra "." in title, and no DOI or bibcode. (bibcode=2008AJ....135..291M, doi=10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/291
removed period and added others Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yup/good catch. overhauled ref to proper published one and stats Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Massive Star Burps, Then Explodes" is missing writing date 4 April 2007 and has retrieved date in wrong style.
Fixed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA – Supernova Imposter Goes Supernova" has retrieved date in wrong style.
Retrieval dates fixed & {{use dmy dates}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox meteor showers shows as ?????
oops, had forgotten to check. found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lost Stars: Lost, Missing and Troublesome Stars from the Catalogues of Johannes Bayer, Nicholas Louis de Lacaille, John Flamsteed, and Sundry Others. with two page ranges referencing several different things perhaps should get two references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
aaand ref split out now....answered all now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in " Discovery of a large-scale clumpy structure of the Lynx supercluster at z∼1.27" "∼" character seems to be non standard, and does not display in my console window, perhaps ~ is the correct character.
substituted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "ALPHA LYN (Alpha Lyncis) and ALSCIAUKAT (31 Lyncis)" reference, the star names are typed in all caps, but there is no separate title on that web page, and the html title is given as "Alpha and 31 Lyn". The html title looks to be preferable in appearance.
lowercased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a person whose name is spelled three different ways: Johns‐krull, Johns-Krull and Johns‐Krull. Best to have them all the same.
streamlined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two noninfobox pictures have no alt= text. This should describe what is seen in the image, and provide additional information to the caption, especially for people that cannot see the image.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really there are not enough images. Perhaps there could be a sky image of the whole constellation. For each constellation I would also like to see a map with every visible star labelled with its designation, rather than just a spot, as our images on commons have, but this may be more appropriate for the list of stars in Lynx.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there are none that are more detailed than the one in the infobox that are in English - this would be great in English. But might look odd with the infobox one as well. I will try to add some numbers to the infobox one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
nope/good catch. tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Graeme Bartlett are you happy with changes till now? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the changes made. I will also add a request for retrieved dates for web sites
  • "XMM discovers monster galaxy cluster" needs retrieval date.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where there are huge lists of authors should they be limited with display-authors=10?
am looking for rules on this and can see limits of 3, 6, or none (i.e. unlimited) authors. I like the idea that everyone who does research can get listed somewhere so do like the unlimited option :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also is there any non-astromony information about the constellation such as astrology or popular culture?
Lynx is really obscure...I have done some looking and found nothing so far. One last look yielded Louis Hamelin and his book, yet the book appears to have nothing to do with the constellation apart from the title..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck off the resolved issues I raised. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Graeme Bartlett, in summary, there is no rule for limiting authors to 10, only for 3 or 6, and no consensus on pageranges. I've been using 2 digits for about 10 years, and our MOS doesn't say anything (unless I am missing something..?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lithopsian edit

Hard to find anything left that needs changing, but the meteor shower is generally called the September Lyncids, to distinguish from two other very faint showers in Lynx. For images, this could be annotated with star labels, perhaps labels for the stars mentioned in the text. Or this at least labels more than a single star. There are also several deep sky object images that could be added, although there is already one in that section. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett and Lithopsian, what I tried to do a few years ago was alter the infobox map. So for Canis Minor I made File:Canis Minor IAUflamsteed.png..but then I couldn't get it into the constellation infobox due to the coding, so moved it to File:Canis Minor IAU.svg (see history at bottom of that one) but I was reverted, probably because I stuffed some format up. Ideally, I'd like to put some flamsteed numbers on the map in the infobox as it seems silly to have two maps of the constellation otherwise. I am open to ideas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image was reverted on a technicality. It just needs to be in SVG format. The name used by the constellation infobox is hard-coded from the constellation name so it isn't currently possible to use a different image - that could be changed. Lithopsian (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, from this list there are 13 but only one established (the Alpha Lyncids). So I think the rest are of questionalbe notability..yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


(Note to Lithopsian: please use level four (====) for subheaders, as level two messes the WP:FAC page up. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "It was introduced in the 17th century by Johannes Hevelius." The constellation or the name for the constellation? (I assume from what you say below it was the constellation but this should be made clear in the lead.)
I made it a subordinate clause of the previous sentence to minimise repetition - let me know if you think it's too long a sentence now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six star systems have been found to contain planets. 6 Lyncis and HD 75898 were discovered to have planets by the Doppler method, while XO-2, XO-4 and XO-5 were found to have planets that were observed as they passed in front of them by the XO Telescope in Hawaii, and WASP-13 had a transiting planet discovered by the SuperWASP program." Why mention the telescopes which discovered four and not the other two? It does not seem important enough for the lead. "passed in front of them" is linked to "Methods of detecting extrasolar planets", which redirects to "Methods of detecting exoplanets". I think the general link to methods should be from "found to contain planets", and would suggest something like "XO-2, XO-4, XO-5 and WASP-13 when they were [[Transit (astronomy)|transited]] by planets". Similar comments apply to the discussion of exoplanets in the main text.
Agree about removing them from the lead and done. I think they should remain in the text as there were/are only a handful of telescopes detecting planets and they are interesting, notable and different - so I will preserve the links there I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Lynx Supercluster, which was the most distant supercluster known at the time of its discovery." It would be interesting to know the date and distance.
date added - distance for very distant things is tricky to explain as it has to take into account the expansion of the universe and the inflation of the universe itself. Mostly things are referred to in redshift numbers. I am thinking of putting a footnote at fist mention of redshift to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spectral type K7III" - can K7III be linked?
I have linked spectral type to Stellar_classification#Spectral_types. K7III means it's an orange giant. Orange giant now links to Giant star (forgot to link and now done so) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only named star is Alsciaukat" - I found this puzzling. Do you not regard Alpha Lyncis and 12 Lyncis as names?
They are designations - it means Proper names (astronomy), which I have now reworded th clarify and linked to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest giving the magnitude for Alpha Lyncis and Alsciaukat.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The components are a yellow giant of spectral type G8III that is 4.01 ± 2.17 times as massive as the Sun, and an F-type main sequence star of spectral type F8V that is 3.73 times as massive as the Sun." So the mass of one of the pair is known to two decimal places, and the other only as between two and six times the size of the sun?
dunno what happened there or, looking back, how the "± 2.17" got into it. Removed now as can't find how it turned up now.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two are 10.6 au apart" I am not sure how familiar "au" is to laymen. I remembered that is stands for astronomical unit but had to look up what it meant. Maybe spell out 10.6 times as far apart as the earth and the sun?
have unabbreviated - added a footnote to explain distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether the distance is given - e.g. for 15 Lyncis but not for 12 Lyncis. (Is the information not available for 12 Lyncis?)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "convectively induced oscillatory thermal" - could this be linked?
have linked convection. The other just means temperature going up and down with oscillations... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lynx's most notable deep sky object is NGC 2419" - most notable but not enough to be mentioned in the lead?
added to lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shapley class II cluster" - another it would be helpful to link if possible.
added a link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a blue compact dwarf galaxy that is somewhere between 17 and 30 million light-years away from Earth." No change needed, but is the approximate distance compared with exact ones for other galaxies because no cepheids have been seen in it?
I suspect somesuch - standard candles are Very Useful Things... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last two paragraphs you sometimes give objects redshift, sometimes distance in light years. (I assume this is due to differences in the sources, but presumably you could convert redshift to light years?) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh. see this and this. Need to think about this...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC) aaand the other problem is the universe model you apply after all that...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update @Dudley Miles: - have added footnote with link to redshift and Hubble's law with explanation that redshift is used for far distant objects. Could be expanded I guess but that might be better done on target page. It isn't done well on Hubble's law. Happy for input/feedback from readers POV on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think providing conversions from redshift to light years would be very helpful, but I accept your point that this could not be done without a POV selection among different methods of conversion. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks/much appreciated. Will do some reading later and maybe post at the astronomy wikiproject about imporving the target pages on this regarding redshift etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Praemonitus edit

Support: my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I did a quick review and have a few concerns:

  • "LHS 1963" is listed as the "Nearest star" in the Infobox, but that is unreferenced and possibly incorrect. I get a distance of 8.62 pc based upon Van Leeuwen F. (2007).
corrected distance - these nearest stars in constellation were added before my time. Not sure how they come up with them. I guess list of stars sequentially..The star has 41 refs and I was scouring them to see if I could make the case for the star being notable. It has been studied a bit but nothing very unique or unusual about it as far as I can see.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When seen through a telescope, it can be separated into three stars: two very close together of magnitudes 5.4 and 6.0 and a yellow-hued star of magnitude 7.2 a little further away.": This is unnecessary vagueness. I've updated the star's article with the necessary information, so you should be able to use that.
imported/thanks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "oscillatory thermal (COT) mode": this technical term isn't explained or linked.
    • I did some checking on this. The term was proposed by P. R. Wood in 2000,[2] based on a mathematical analysis. Apparently long period variation in red giants still isn't understood very well, so I'm not sure what to suggest here. Perhaps ask at the Astronomy WikiProject? Praemonitus (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • COT stands for Convection-Induced Oscillatory Thermal Mode. Although the modes currently known are all highly damped, it is proposed that a less strongly damped COT mode might account for the long secondary periods seen in many long period variables. Probably shouldn't have its own article, but maybe a mention in long period variable and then you could link to it. Lithopsian (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I had this trouble finding somewhere to link to when I first wrote about it. I just needed some uninterrupted time to do some quiet reading and digesting to add the material. Will do soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC) After looking at that paper, I conclude that this is the simplest way of explaining it...unless I am missing something Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HD 75898 is a yellow subgiant that has a planet 2.51 Jupiter masses orbiting with a period of around 418 days.": this is a lower bound on the mass, not the actual mass.
page 1396 concludes that planet is minimum of 2 Jupiter masses, while calculation is 2.51 Jupiter masses which is not described as a minimum as far as I can tell. So I can say "2.51" or ">2". Have left it at >2 but the abstract might be more what the authors were wanting to say... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson et al (2006) say "M sin i = 2.51 MJUP", so I take that as a lower bound on the mass. (Since sin i ≤ 1, M sin i ≤ M.) Praemonitus (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10.6 astronomical units": should have a '(au)' afterward so that subsequent uses of 'au' are clear.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a globular cluster that is one of the most distant known of its kind at a distance of 300,000 light-years from Earth.": I don't think this is true by a long shot, since globular clusters are being studied around other more distant galaxies. Perhaps the statement needs a restrictive clause? Also, what is meant by "of its kind"?
it is supposed to mean intragalactic globular cluster - rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This same star may have changed from a LBV star to a Wolf–Rayet star shortly before it was observed erupting as hypernova SN 2006jc on October 11, 2006.": how "shortly"?
2 years - added better ref and clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While observing the quasar, ESA's XMM Newton and the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) in Arizona in 2008 discovered the huge galaxy cluster 2XMM J083026+524133.": please clarify that the cluster was discovered by the astronomers, rather than by the telescopes.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sato, Bun'ei; et al. (2008)" and "Nakata, F.; et al. (2004)": these are inconsistent with the other references showing full author listings.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left the quality of the prose to be reviewed by others. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine - it is most important how accessible it is to astronomy-naive folks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Noswall59 edit

  • In the lead: "Six star systems have been found to contain planets. 6 Lyncis and HD 75898 were discovered to have planets by the Doppler method, while XO-2, XO-4, XO-5 and WASP-13 were found to have planets that were observed as they passed in front of the host star." - there is a lot of repetition of 'planet#' here. It's not essential, but perhaps the wording could be altered to yield smoother results.
I tried this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That reads better, thanks.
  • The history section feels quite timeless; apart from the vague reference to its early use in the 17th century, there are no dates. Could any more specific details be added?
dates added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section still seems a tad brief, but I am not sure what more can be added and it seems fine as it is.
  • Notable Stars: I would link or explain 'Bayer designation'; maybe link 'light-years'; link 'exoplanet'
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Notable Stars: "Lynx's most notable deep sky object is NGC 2419, also called the "Intergalactic Wanderer", a globular cluster that is one of the most distant known of its kind at a distance of 300,000 light-years from Earth" could avoid repetition as: "Lynx's most notable deep sky object is NGC 2419, also called the "Intergalactic Wanderer"; at 300,000 light-years from Earth, this globular cluster is one of the most distant of its kind known, as of 2016".
I had to rejig this whole bit - let me know how it reads now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That reads better to me.
  • Notable Stars: with reference to the Bear Paw's Galaxy, the article says that a theory about interactions with another galaxy "is now considered highly unlikely". Perhaps some brief reference to who considers this unlikely, and how and why, is needed. I am not sure about policy on this though, so it is not essential.
I added it - can go into greater detail on the daughter article pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that seems better.

Broadly speaking, I think the article is well-written and seems to provide a good overview of the stars, as well a summary of the constellation's characteristics. The history section is fine, but needs some dates and any other useful material on the history of its usage would be nice to see. The prose is good on the whole, but could do with some tightening in places to avoid repetition and aid flow; a few extra links for non-scientists would be great. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Support: my points have been addressed, the prose seems to be of a very high quality, the article has inline citations for all facts and opinions and the detailed coverage of the characteristics and notable features seems comprehensive to me (although I am no expert). The history sections seems short, but I am aware that this a very obscure constellation and it may well be that this covers all that is available in secondary material. For all of these reasons, I am happy to support this nomination, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pax85 edit

I am currently working on a review and should have comments up within a day or two. -Pax Verbum 04:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Done.[reply]

  • I'm still working, but there is one thing that I have noticed that needs to be researched right off the bat: In characteristics, it says that culmination occurs on midnight on 20 January. Wouldn't this date shift a bit, depending on the year? Also, the sources I have seen (only two tonight because it's late, but I'd be willing to help find more) say culmination actually occurs in March.
    • Culmination happens every night (or day). A date association with culmination is generally the day on which culmination occurs at midnight, making it convenient to observe the object. This is January for Lynx. Also sometimes quoted is the date on which culmination occurs at 9pm, March in this case. There are small cyclical variations due to a number of effects including the leap year, as well as secular effects of precession, but these are easily ignored since constellations are large areas of the sky that culminate at a particular time over several weeks. Lithopsian (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder if it would be good to make that distinction in the article, since it is likely going to be read by non-astro folks? I altered the wording slightly to make it clear. I know culmination occurs every night, but the current wording may be helpful for non-astro folks (and I had no sleep when I wrote the above)... -Pax Verbum 22:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished up. Overall, a wonderful article. I hope you don't mind, but I went through and made some very minor copy-edits, mostly for prose. I would like to see some more media, both in terms of images and links for non-astro types, but I don't think that the article lacks so much in these areas as to prevent it from being an FA. There is one outstanding issue that needs clarification, in terms of wording:

they look ok, though the quasar discovered was the most luminous known object in all existence when discovered. Fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In "Characteristics": "Hevelius gave it the alternate name of Tiger in his catalogue as well as Lynx, but kept the latter name only in his atlas." To some readers, it might not be entirely clear which is in the atlas. Does latter mean the latter of the two names created (Tiger) or the latter of the names listed in the above sentence (Lynx)?

I hadn't thought of that - ok, I tweaked it to this. How's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! -Pax Verbum 16:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once this is determined, I will certainly give a thumbs–up! -Pax Verbum 23:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The article seems well-researched and written. Thank you for this! -Pax Verbum 16:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • All images are CC licensed or PD, but the two following ones need United States public domain tags on Commons: [3] and [4]. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A nice person has added them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The watermarks on [5] should be removed per Commons guidelines, but that is of course not a problem for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sidney Hall image does not appear to link to the correct image on the Library of Congress site:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • All of the citations are to reliable sources, no problems there.
  • There are adequate citations throughout the text.
  • Cites are all properly formatted (I made a small edit [pp.-->p.]).
  • Everything is good to go as far as sourcing is concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2016 (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/Lynx_(constellation)/archive1&oldid=1146743925"