Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norma (constellation)/archive1

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2015 [1].

Norma (constellation) edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've buffed over twenty constellations to FA status now - this article is the next in line. I think it is as good as the others. It's had an astronomer (Mike Peel (talk · contribs)) look it over as well as a few astronomy wikiproject folks. (and yes it is a wikicup entry) Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: A wikicup nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

Cas Liber, first and foremost, I'd like to commend you on this well-written and well-researched article on Norma. Following my review, I assess that this article meets Featured Article criteria, but I did have three questions/comments that should first be addressed:

In the "History" section, it is mentioned that Lacaille first named the constellation l'Equerre et la Regle ("the Square and Rule") and then Latinized the constellation's name to Norma. I'm curious as to how Norma is a Latinization of l'Equerre et la Regle ("the Square and Rule"). Could this be expanded upon?

Yes, added a little, though the source doesn't give much more other than to add to the confusion (i.e. doesn't really explain how we get from "Square and rule" to "Niveau" to "Square"...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section, Scorpius and Lupus could probably stand to be wiki-linked, these are their first mentions in the article's main prose. Circinus could be de-linked in this instance, as it is wiki-linked above in "History."

good catch - all linked/delinked as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any further information on how or why Beta Normae was omitted from Lacaille's 1763 catalogue?

Yes, accidentally...though later chartmakers felt they should be in Scorpius anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, thank you for your extraordinary work on this article and your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx for the complement :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, thank you for addressing my three comments/questions in such a timely manner. I hereby formally Support this article for promotion to Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks/a pleasure Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from edwininlondon
Well written article full of facts. Only one question, should the lead not have information about the distance to nearest star? That strikes me as a reason why people look up a constellation page. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this one is tricky. I've never had anyone point this out before and the star itself was deleted as non-notable. Nothing much is coming up on line. Will have a look more tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

No problems I can see,so supporting. Interesting comment from Edwininlondon above. it wouldn't have struck me as relevant except in the special case of Centaurus. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Jim...that reminded me...was going to look today... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've attempted to address those concerns I discovered. It appears FA worthy. Good work! Praemonitus (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

URW Praemonitus (talk)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

Wikipedia text "Ant Nebula... has a complex appearance, with at least four outflow jets and two large lobes visible". Source: "At least four distinct outflows have been identified which, from the inside to the outside, are the following: a pair of bright bipolar lobes, two opposite highly collimated column-shaped outflows, a conical system of radial structure, and a very dim, previously unnoticed, low-latitude and flattened (ring-like) radial outflow." It seems that our text takes two of the four outflows and lists them separately, thus describing as six things which in fact are four...am I correct, or am I misreading?

It is tough to read. Luckily there is a diagram at the top of page 2 here, so it is four jets and two lobes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so "four jets" == "a conical system of radial structure"? And should we mention the visible "highly collimated column-shaped outflows"?

The four ray thingies...I figure any more detail should be left to the daughter article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

same paragraph, 1600 years seems like a short time to me, so what does "per kpc to the nebula" (in source) mean?

(groan) it means "per kiloparsec" - reading the paper again leaves us with a possilbe age of outer bits at 1500 years...but that is presuming a certain distance which we are not sure it is...in any case the paper is a little vague with some if/then bit so just removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to make you groan. Of course I have no knowledge of all these things, and so do not know what is or isn't worth mentioning, or what granularity of precision/correctness is generally considered acceptable. :-)

I groaned because I misread it in the first instance and then realised it was going to be tricky to discuss without clarifying that the distance was uncertain yada yada...astronomy articles are alot trickier than bio ones.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article mentions eight open clusters visible through binoculars, but I count 7 in text: NGC 6087, NGC 6067, NGC 6134, NGC 6167, NGC 6115, NGC 6031 and NGC 5999.

The constellation has at least 11 open clusters, so I didn't think that we needed to list all 8 as such. I'll try and dig up #8 though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

update: nothing much else to find. the source doesn't list the 8 so I can't figure out the 8th. Just making the stubs and trying to figure out from there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you finesse it with "at least 7", or add another source, or...?

update:I would love to...but can't find any sources... :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment call, your mileage may vary: I count 8 google scholar hits for "Fine-Ring Nebula", 134 for "Norma Cluster", etc. I might put Norma Cluster at the top of this section, before the eight open clusters etc.

I structure these sections, ordering from close to far away, so intragalactic, then close extragalactic (galaxies etc) then far far away....(galaxy clusters/superclusters) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps a few appropriately-phrased descriptive words before each para indicating relative distance would be helpful.

Ummm...there are. several objects have their distance in light-years listed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article already places a conspicuously high cognitive load on readers. Organizing sentences increase readability and help the reader by reducing overall cognitive load (thus permitting the reader to focus attention/energy on the key bits that really need it). Tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know - I have tried massaging the prose to place the distances up front to set the scale a bit. Agree they are tricky to balance accuracy and accessibility Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, those wee little changes made it noticeably more readable.

Funny how language and word order can work, ain't it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find "2.8 years" in "The HARPS Search for Southern Extrasolar Planets XXIII. 8 Planetary Companions to Low-activity Solar-type Stars"

Aha, in conclusions section, its period is 1027 days (divide that by 365 leads to 2.8 years...more accessible for lay-readers) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning (and referencing) that "the rotation period for SGR J1550-5418, ~2.07 s, is the fastest yet observed for a magnetar"?

yes/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Overall, there are 44 stars within the constellation's borders brighter than or equal to apparent magnitude 6.5." If "visual magnitude" s the same as "apparent magnitude", then I count only 16 stars greater than 6.5 in our table at List of stars in Norma. Moreover, what makes this self-published source reliable? I count three such works by Ridpath in refs

Good point - Ian Ridpath is a notable author and in fact much of his web material was published as one or more books. He has written several astronomy guides. Hence I'd take him as a reliable source. Visual does equal apparent magnitude. There are slightly more than 44 stars listed at List of stars in Norma that are brighter than 6.5 (i.e. lower value) - magnitudes can be hard to pin down.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know to count "less thans" instead of "greater thans". OK. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention Great Attractor in the lead?

Hmmm, I wonder whether off topic a bit, but maybe not...let me take a look how tangential it might be... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will leave as is, as the link is not clear-cut. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article states "It is thought to be around 102 million years old, and contain 893 solar masses" and gives source as Piskunov, but I can't find that info here

Many of these articles have the data separate, so one goes here and clicks 'online data'. At the next page "NGC 6067" is entered as the name and we get answers in logarithms - 10^8.01 years (i.e. 102 million years) for age and 10^2.95 solar masses for weight (i.e. 891 solar masses...whoops). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, call me picky. I see this next one is a summary, but: article states "It was poorly monitored after the first eruption, so it is possible that it erupted in 1961" Source states "For IM Nor, we have two known eruptions (1920 and 2002) for a simplistic recurrence time scale of 81.5 years. But there could easily have been missed eruptions in the many decades between. For the interval with a plausible missed event (1930–1991), 〈Fdisk〉 = 0.85, with most of the chances for a missed eruption being from 1955 to 1977. As such, the most likely case is for no missed eruption, although one missed eruption is a real possibility. With this, the average τrec is 82 years, or perhaps 41 years." Source also talks about poor monitoring of all such eruptions, of the researcher finding several missed ones, etc. But our article connects one too many dots in this thread, however, and makes 1961 seem like a date that has real evidence behind it rather than academic speculation. The source also doesn't specifically single out our particular star as poorly monitored; it says all such have been poorly monitored.

Fair call - changed "in between". Deliberating whether to add, "not unusually for these stars" or some other qualifier to "poorly monitored" without it coming across as off-topic.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Comment: I'd expect to see XTE J1550-564 (V381 Nor; a microquasar) and 4U 1608-52 (QX Nor; a LMXB that has been observed to burst) listed somewhere; they're both very well-studied and notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added ~~one, just trying to get a source to clarify what is notable about the other to add~~ both now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support I did a pretty decent spot check of the sources (ssee above for some comments, plus I also looked at other sources, but didn't mention them because they were OK). However, I wasn't really paying attention to reference formatting, and don't have time to check. If anyone looks at ref formatting and says everything is fine, then I support. Good work. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx for the source check as well, and accessibility is what we're all about so that was helpful too...cheers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Fn 24: I don't understand what "93, 10 pp" is supposed to mean for the page numbers. Pages 10 and 93?

Sigh, astronomy articles have some weird indexing. For that one, see here. Its id is 93 and it is 10 pages long. This form of indexing is not uncommon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the way you've cited the information from Ridpath web sites. Since you're actually citing material he's citing, should you either cite the original source, or use some "as cited in Ridpath" format?

What Ian Ridpath has done is transcribe his own book onto his website. As I have used the web, I have used the web address and cite web rather rather than the book, which I can't see all of. He is a noted writer of astronomy books. I'm not sure I follow how you'd do it differently....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough—I misinterpreted the Ridpath site. Consider my comments addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 13:08, 3 September 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.