Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyxis/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2015 [1].

Pyxis edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to (eventually) get all the constellations up to Featured Status. So far 25 have attained FA status in the past 3 years or so. Here is number 26. It's had an astronomer take a look at it, and I have been mindful of suggestions he's had for the past few nominations so hopefully there are fewer issues each time. I promise to address issues promptly, cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my concerns were addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a couple of entries that need to be fixed:
  • "...the right ascension coordinates of these borders lie between 10h 32.8m and 27h 42.5m...": that can't be right.
good catch/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"10h 32.8m and 40h 44.2m": note that R.A. coordinates only ever go up to <24h. The listed R.A. coordinate range is 8h 27.7m to 9h 27.6m. Just check the map in the infobox and you'll see. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, thought I got this, but have been a bit sleep-deprived. thanks for fixing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Theta Pyxidis is a red giant... has expanded to 5.4 times the diameter of the Sun": that seems on the low side for a giant star. I checked and the CADARS entry says 54 (5.4e+01).
good catch/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any other significant issues. The references look good, as far as I could see. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - my other query is whether you think K 1-2 and WX Pyxidis are notable enough to include in the article too. I was unsure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well they do have studies published, so they are notable in the Wikipedia sense. The VX Pyx system that created K 1-2 might be of interest to some readers because of its unusual nature.[2] Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, added K 1-2 now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added comment: There are two other deep sky Pyxis objects that probably should be briefly mentioned: the 8th magnitude open clusters NGC 2627 and NGC 2818.[3] They are listed in several observer guides. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
both mentioned now...over to you... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from edwininlondon:

Overall a good article. But I wonder if illustrations could be better. For instance, I like what I see for Puppis. And an egg-shape star is mentioned which would be great to see. Any visuals supporting the planets section also very welcome.

  • Inconsistencies with the quotes around names and translations: I see 'Malus, the mast' and Malus (the "Mast") and "Log and Line," and the quoteless (the Marine Compass)
aligned them now as quoteless Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says its best evening-sky visibility is in January through March, but the infobox says just March
good pick up - ddin't actually have it in the body of the article. Found a ref and added. Infobox is for one particular time only, while book source and text covers a range for viewers (as constellations appear at different times in different months) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • if I'm really picky I am not convinced about any of the capitals in 'Celestial Temple honouring the ancestors of the Emperor'
downcased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1751–52: I couldn't quite see 1751 in the sources, all I see is 1752
can't recall where earlier year comes from now but agree not in either of those sources so removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Greeks: Since we have ancient for the Chinese, it probably should have ancient for the Greeks as well. Also, its position is debatable, one could argue the Greek come before Lacaille.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • spelling: neighbouring makes me think traveled should be British spelling as well (travelled)
good catch/brittified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe be a bit more clear about what 'this' refers to in ' star atlas but this did not survive': the atlas or the concept?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argo Navis is linked twice. One could argue the first link should actually read just Argo.
delinked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urania's Mirror (1825): the sources say it is 1824. And why only refer to Urania's Mirror in the caption, does it not deserve its own sentence in the section?
fixed the date. I guess I haven't included it as the main thrust is th visual appearance, but the actual publishing of pyxis in Urania's Mirror itself is not that unusual. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • overlinking constellation 'in means that the whole constellation'
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • polygon of eight segments: link polygon and sides is probably a better word than segments
tweaked and linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • brighter in 'with apparent magnitudes brighter than' should be smaller
hmm, to me "brighter" is a clearer meaning and not less accurate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just being too picky: I favour "higher speed" over "faster speed", and this is similar, but because the scale goes the other way, it's probably less confusing. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • visual magnitude: would it not be better to keep using apparent magnitude? I got confused because visual magnitude links to apparent magnitude page
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sun and Earth: I would link the sun and not the earth
lniked and delinked respectively. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • interstellar dust deserves a link
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'brighter magnitude of 3.31' --> 'brighter with magnitude 3.31'
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'has exhausted its core hydrogen and cooled and swollen to 3.7 times' --> 'has exhausted its core hydrogen, has cooled and swollen to 3.7 times
Hmm, to me that comes across as a bit repetitive, so I tried this instead. Let me know what you think.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I like that better than my version.Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • overlinking in 'Kappa has a luminosity'
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • surface temperature: why only mentioned for Kappa?
fleshing out some details...but I think they don't add anything so removed the unremarkable surface temps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'a magnitude 10 star' Does this star have a name?
nothing memorable, I think it is CCDM J09080-2552AB and not sure adding would be helpful in reading the article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • dwarf linking: 'white dwarf with around 0.8 times the Sun's mass and a red dwarf' Both are linked later but should be only here
linked at first instances both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd include star in the link in 'eclipsing binary star'
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • link starspot
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Pres and colleagues' come a bit out of the blue
I generally prefer to give credit to specific people for some specific observation. But changed to 'researchers' for flow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Seems like a good rule. If it is that special compared to other observations, then they deserve to be singled out.Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • a period of 1.23995 days seems oddly accurate. Two decimals suffice elsewhere
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • should the reference in between 26 or 28.7 be moved to the end of the sentence? this doesn't read so well. And the 28.7 needs a source as well
the ref at the end of the following sentence covers it. I have added a note to clarify and expanded a little so all refs come behind some punctuation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Planetary systems: I would swap the order of the sentences and talk about the hot Jupiter before giving the details of HD 73256. The focus should be on the planets in this section. Likewise in the last sentence, the focus should be on the discovered planets, which now seems like a minor footnote to the plans to look for rocky planets.
not entirely convinced but I hav had a go massaging this section to bring the planets to the forefront. Let me know if this reads better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this reads better.Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'as hot as 85,000 K' --> as high as
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need 'and around 133,000 light-years distant from the centre of the Milky Way' ?
Yes - the notability of the glob cluster is that this distance from the centre was not previously thought to contain glob clusters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'a distance not previously thought to contain globular clusters' Can a distance contain clusters?
tweaked to 'region' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: Ian Ridpath 2006: it says "et al", but that's not correct I think. Also missing DK Publishing
ref fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • does the year not suffice in Davis, Kate (19 April 2011) and Watson, Christopher (4 January 2010) ?
I have always given dates if possible for websites - I guess because their updates can be alot more frequent so it assumes more importance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on board my suggestions. I am leaning to support. The only thing holding me back are the images. It needs more illustrations I think I had a quick poke around the web, and maybe you find some of these good enough to add:

What do you think? Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the last one is very helpful as it just looks like a bunch of lines. I have added one of the T pyxidis ones, while the others would be good to import to the T pyxidis article at some point. Thanks for hunting around. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed the person who uploaded the image on the left on Puppis page if he would be so kind to put his Pyxis on in the public domain as well. Regardless, I've changed my status to support Edwininlondon (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). A high quality article with good concise writing style. Most obviously educational and encyclopedic on a topic in science. Complex subject matter and yet accessible for the layman -- good job. — Cirt (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cirt ++ :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comments
    Overall this seems very professional so I've not much to quibble about. However, I would recommend the use of alt text in the images present, to aid with screen-readers.
added to body of text. Need to chase down template of constellation box to do anything with that...might be tricky... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, I can see now how that's coded; the image is called directly by the infobox without room to amend it. It looks like it would require the addition of another field in the infobox—though given the difficulty of describing the images in question, I would suggest simply adding something like |alt=A map depicting a field of stars, with the constellation {{{NAME}}} highlighted. This would automatically add adequate alt text to everything using the infobox without needing a further edit. But it's a change affecting a lot of articles so obviously weigh its merits with any collaborators you have in the field. GRAPPLE X 13:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the "NGC 2818" image caption is a bit off-putting; even prefacing it as "The planetary nebula NGC 2818" might look a little better.
expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "planetary systems" heading, we have a colon (after "all discovered by doppler spectroscopy") that seems to indicate the start of a serried list, which is instead broken into different sentences. I'd consider just replacing it with a full stop.
tweaked as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The brighter star is deformed into an egg-shape". Should "egg-shape" be hyphenated in this usage?
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Galactic halo" be capitalised thus? GRAPPLE X 11:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lower-cased - as it is not a unique object. target article lower case. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to support this one now; the one outstanding comment is probably too fiddly to worry about. GRAPPLE X 13:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord's Note - Are we missing a citation here: " WISEPC J083641.12-185947.2 is a brown dwarf located around 72 light-years from Earth which was discovered by infrared astronomy in 2011." Graham Beards (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

whoops! fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 8 October 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/Pyxis/archive1&oldid=1144851579"