Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microscopium/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) 10:23, 31 May 2015 [1].

Microscopium edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onward and upward - this is the next in a bunch of constellations that are being buffed. Thought it was boring but has some fascinating tidbits. Has had a professional lookover from astronomer Mike Peel and a reasonably thorough GAN from Curly Turkey - so let me know what else needs doing. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—the article's gone through only minor tweaks since I saw it, and I thought it was up to snuff then (except for some unfortunate sandwiching with the infobox). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Based on a read through, I think it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Regarding 'Mic' (with single quotes), my sense is that consensus at FAC, even for non-AmEng articles, is for double quotes except for single letter abbreviations (sometimes) and a few other special cases. See WP:MOS#Reasons to prefer double quotation marks to single quotation marks, which applies the principle to phrases like "must see" as well as to quotations. It wouldn't bother me at all if consensus changed at either MOS or FAC, but I haven't seen evidence of that so far. I only mention this once per customer; I don't like to push this point because it might be seen as a pro-AmEng agenda, which it's not. The IAU (at http://www.iau.org/public/themes/constellations/) seems to use italics rather than single or double quotes, which would also be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx - my feeling is italics probably as a word-as-word situation. However we have a bunch of other constellation FAs with the single quotes. I think the best thing is a quick RfC and change all constellations at once to preferred version. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Cas, works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – usual high quality stuff. One thing: "The stars that comprise Microscopium are in a region previously considered the hind feet of Sagittarius, a neighboring constellation." -- Who considerd this? CassiantoTalk 23:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx -will double check. source doesn't say but it'd be early celestial cartographers before the 1750s I suspect. This is the logical answer but not stated in source however.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem if it doesn't. Perhaps its best to avoid OR even if the answer is obvious. CassiantoTalk 08:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Blue-linking "French" is pushing things a bit, in terms of WP:OVERLINK, and your bibliographic style is not entirely consistent: you tell us that Cambridge and London are in the UK, but we are left in ignorance of the whereabouts of Florida and New Jersey. That apart (and looking just a little askance at "to all intents and purposes") I have nothing but praise for a fine article that is comprehensible even to someone like me, to whom astronomy is a closed book. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oh dear, I unlinked French. I've always done states for north america and australia and countries elsewhere.....thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Source review:

  • Some journal titles are linked, some aren't (Popular Astronomy, for example).
did that. checking others linked all I could Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like "self-published" ought to be capitalized. Thoughts?
fine by me - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 15 - wrong date? The source says it was published in 2002, not 2003.
whoops, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 25 - can you pipe the link to the journal so "The" is included in the link? Looks awkward.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, everything looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 30 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/Microscopium/archive1&oldid=1138466984"