Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ursa Minor/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2015 [1].
Contents
Ursa Minor edit
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) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Urania's Mirror should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – comprehensible even by an astronomic ignoramus like me. Clear, evidently comprehensive, very pleasingly written and well illustrated. Seems to me to meet the FA criteria. I wondered if there might be a suitable citation for the pleasing line about testing one's eyesight, but it's hardly a matter of great moment. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment: I'd expect to see W Ursae Minoris, RU Ursae Minoris, and SS Ursae Minoris all mentioned somewhere; they're all well-studied and interesting star systems. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was deliberating about some of these and how long to make the section.
Will investigate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Have added the two eclipsing binaries. The dwarf nova is tricky as, although referenced in alot of articles, finding some specific characteristics of interest to a lay reader is proving elusive (I think we need something more concrete than lots of superhumps and periods....NB: this is best bet and there's not much on SS UMi in it, sadly) - and I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was deliberating about some of these and how long to make the section.
Support: My concerns were addressed and I believe it is FA worthy. Praemonitus (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's an enjoyable read and is just about ready for FA status. However, I did find a few small issues that I think need to be resolved:
"The star is thought to have undergone a helium flash, a point where the shell of helium around the star's core reaches a critical mass and ignites...": This is a 'helium-shell flash', which occurs later than the 'helium flash' event.[2] (Note the slightly different link.)
"semidetached system" can be wikilinked to Semidetached binary
The margin of error format flips between unspaced "487±8 light-years" and spaced "62.2 ± 3.9 years". Can you make it consistent?
The article is inconsistent in its format of thousands. For example, "42 000 years", "16300 light-years", and "200,000 K". I personally prefer the comma separator as it is more difficult to misinterpret. But opinions vary.
- I prefer the comma too - it's a "val" format that's doing it - removed and comma'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, you can add the '|fmt=commas' option to the {{val}} template. It's a bit of a nuisance though. Praemonitus (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the comma too - it's a "val" format that's doing it - removed and comma'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"HD 150706 is a sunlike star of spectral type G0V some 89 light-years distant from our Solar System that was thought to have a planet as massive as Jupiter at a distance of 0.6 AU that was subsequently discounted in 2007": I think this could be written a little better.
"It has been characterized as a starburst galaxy, which means it is undergoing a high rate of star formation compared to a typical galaxy": opinion needs a cite.
"It is also noted for its radio lobe": opinion needs a cite.
"Ursa Minor is rather devoid of many deep-sky objects": devoid of many?
There's a few issues with the footnotes:Shouldn't "Guilherme de Almeida" be "de Almeida, Guilherme"?
"Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian".
Benson et al is missing a date (1994).
Kirkpatrick et al is missing a date (2011).
Some of the citations have a linked title plus a doi or arxiv. These frequently resolve to the same address. For example, Sato et al (2013)
Footnote #66 says only "SIMBAD". It should be made consistent with the other SIMBAD references.
Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jim edit
I'm moving to Ursa Minor Beta!! At last, a proper constellation, i.e. one I can see all year round. Just a couple of quibbles before I support this excellent article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- planet orbiting it. It and..— I don't like consecutive "it"s
- Ursa Minor is notable as...— "some centuries" is vague to say the least. Three? 40? I think we should be given some idea. How long has it been the pole star?
- "Sun" inconsistently capped
- Further study published— "A further study" or "Further studies"
Coord note edit
While we wait for a formal source review, citations for the end of the second para of History and mythology and the first para of Characteristics? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review edit
Spotchecks not done; footnote numbering is as of this revision (18:16, 1 August 2015 UTC)
Notes
The inline ordering of notes and refs should be consistent; currently we have [17][a], [b][17], and [c][23]
After recent edits it is now [12][a], [17][b], [c][17], and [d][23] - Evad37 [talk] 12:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should foonote c start with a capital letter?
Citations
Capitalisation (sentence case or title case) should be consistent, at least for same type of citation. E.g. (journals/periodicals) cites 5. and 7. uses title case for the article while cites 43. and 47. uses sentence case; (books) 9. uses sentence case while others use title case. (these are just some of the examples)
Some ISBNs are plain numbers, others use dashes – should be consistent (either way)
3: Missing a period after H.J.P
4, 8, 17: "self-published" appears after a period, so it should be capitalised
7: Why use the abbreviation Proc. Am. Philos. Soc?
14, 15: Citation elements should be separated by periods rather than commas, for consistency with other citations
17: Ridpath, Ian should be linked on first occurrence (cite 8.) rather than here
45: Is the double hyphen (--) meant to be a dash (–) ?
51: Missing publisher (and possibly other details)
- Evad37 [talk] 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved issues struck
– still waiting on the Notes issues- Evad37 [talk] 12:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cwmhiraeth edit
Very nice! A few things (as always):
- "Beta Ursae Minoris, traditionally called Kochab, is only slightly less bright than Polaris with its apparent magnitude of 2.08" - This sentence is ambiguous. Which star does the magnitude refer to?
- "Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness from one star passing in front of the other ..." - "perhaps "because of".
Spotchecks
- #9 Partially supports cited sentence.
- Hmm, am going off discussion on section 2 of page 130, where they are discussing the fact (mystery) of Homer having only one Bear - what do you feel is unsupported? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence "leading to speculation over what he saw the stars of Ursa Minor as", I don't see anything about speculation in the source.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, am going off discussion on section 2 of page 130, where they are discussing the fact (mystery) of Homer having only one Bear - what do you feel is unsupported? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- #15 Page of Google book not available to me.
- #17 Source supports cited sentence.
- #22 Source supports cited sentence.
- #34 The figure 855 (light years) that this cites does not appear on a page of, to me, incomprehensible figures.
- #44 Article states "The star is thought to have undergone a shell helium flash ... in 1979." The source is less specific.
- #46 Source supports cited sentence.
- #55 Source supports cited sentence.
- #66 Source supports cited sentence.
- #69 The source mentions lobes in the plural, and as far as I can make out, the new discovery was a stream of plasma and not the lobes themselves.
- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does the article use "Ursae Minoris" in some places and "Ursa minor" in others? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ursae Minoris is the genitive ("of Ursa Minor" if you like) and it is how anything "of Ursa Minor" is denoted as with Bayer designations etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 7 August 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. Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 8 August 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.