Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of selected stars for navigation/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:40, 3 February 2011 [1].

List of selected stars for navigation edit

List of selected stars for navigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): HausTalk 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A previous version of this list received some support as a FLC in May 2008. Some ideas came up during the candidacy and have been implemented. The list has recently been peer-reviewed. Cheers. HausTalk 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Is there a reason or purpose for the blank row in the large list? Also, the many uses of "Strasbourg Astronomical Data Center (CDS)" in the References section seems redundant--consider using just "CDS" for subsequent uses. Also, I believe "–" is the proper dash for displaying a page range (see Citations section). --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've addressed your points:
  • Changed "—" to "–" for page ranges after double-checking WP:DASH.
  • Changed "Strasbourg Astronomical Data Center (CDS)" to CDS 56 times.
  • Regarding the blank row , I see two options. Either remove it and disable sorting by declination or leave it as it is. If anyone sees another way around this, I'm all ears. I think it was resolved by adding style="display:none;" to the row's formatting. HausTalk 10:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. HausTalk 10:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I think it would be legit to link star here, in the lead.
  • Could also link Polaris in the lead.
  • Almanac caption doesn't need a full stop.
  • I would link magnitude to Magnitude (astronomy) rather than have "(an indication of brightness)".
  • I think it would be acceptable to move Note 1 to the end of the sentence. As long as it's within the same sentence, no problem.
  • "Key to the Table" -> "Key to the table".
  • "The star's magnitude, an indication of its luminosity is then presented" You've explained what magnitude is twice already so I see no need to repeat this.
  • Distance appears to be missing from the key. I would say it was distance in light years from Earth, but I'm not sure.
  • Overuse of referencing, in my opinion. For instance, you use ref 1 six times to reference the information in the first para about star charts. I think it's unnecessary.
  • No need to use spaced en-dashes in ref 2 & 3.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've made most of the suggested changes:
  • Star and Polaris are now linked in the lede.
  • Full stop removed in almanac caption.
  • "magnitude (an indication of brightness)" changed to "magnitude"
  • "Note 1" is now at the end of the sentence.
  • "Key to the Table" changed to "Key to the table"
  • "sidereal hour angle. The star's magnitude, an indication of its luminosity is then presented." changed to "sidereal hour angle, followed by the star's magnitude."
  • Changed 6 refs in first para of star charts section to one at end of para.
  • Changed spaced en-dashes in ref 2 & 3 to unspaced "-".
  • Removed distance column from table, its not germane to the subject. ( HausTalk 11:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Acrux has a more common name (according to the redirect) of Alpha Crucis. Is that true?
  • Gacrux, Denebola and Rigil Kentaurus similar.
  • "four stars of the easily identified constellation" - beginning to read like a HOWTO guide.
  • Not sure how accessible the charts are, a lot of very very small graphics.
The following items may need revisiting:
  • Regarding common names: Acrux, Gacrux, Denebola and Rigil Kentaurus are supported by Bowditch and the Almanac. I'm very hesitant to replace these names with WP's article names.
  • No worries, I was just asking because the redirects stood out to me. I'm no expert, so I'll leave it to your discretion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding size of charts and the HOWTO concern, I'm hesitant to start removing big chunks of content without further elaboration.
  • Per the HOWTO issue, just felt like you needed to make the language more encyclopedic rather than instructive. I wasn't looking to remove chunks of content. Chart sizes, well that's a different matter as I'm not sure how they fare in WP:ACCESS terms. I suggest you ask User:RexxS for a second opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the feedback. HausTalk 11:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have a couple of personal outstanding niggles, but nothing so serious as to stop me supporting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from RexxS (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from RexxS:

First of all, the four star charts are obviously a labour of love, and contain a lot of information, and you deserve commendation for producing them. When considering how WP:ACCESS impacts images, you have to try to figure out how (1) a visually-impaired viewer would see them; and (2) how a blind viewer, using a screen reader such as JAWS, would hear them.

  • The images contain a lot of text, and the key point is to try to ensure that the text is readable by the visually impaired. Good guidance would be to try to keep the displayed text size above 85% of normal displayed text, as anything less will cause problems for some viewers. Nevertheless, modern browsers can be zoomed to make text more readable, and the four images enlarge well, so this is not a problem with them. For images with so much information, I'd normally suggest forcing a larger size, but the two equatorial maps at 600px wide just fit into an 800x600 screen, which is the minimum resolution recommended at WP:ACCESS#Resolution; similarly the two polar maps at 400px wide are at the limit of the guidance at WP:IMGSIZE for floated images. I think you've achieved as good a balance as possible.
  • A screen reader isn't able to access most of the information these images convey, and sometimes we have to accept that we can't provide an equivalent presentation within the image for screen readers. However, the article itself does not suffer as a result, since the information is actually already present in the large table above, and that is usable by a screen reader (but see the next point).
  • The main table really should have 'scope="col" attributes on the column headers; and it would benefit from having row headers for both accessibility and markup reasons. It's early days for these techniques on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't object to promotion on these grounds alone, but it's still best practice. There's guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial. It's a lot to take in, but several editors would be willing to assist if you wanted help in incorporating these.
  • To avoid the nuisance of having the file name read out in a screen reader, every image should have alt text, which a screen reader would hear. The links in the box at the top of this review include a link to altviewer, and you can see that the following images require alt text:

Summary: Needs alt text; Image size is already optimised; Table would benefit from tweaks. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RexxS for the very constructive feedback. I think I've addressed most of the suggestions you made, but have a lingering question wrt row headers.
  • scope="col" Added to all column headers of main table.
  • Alt text: according to altviewer, I think I hit all of these.
  • Row-headers: In this diff, I tried using row headers. There were 3 side-effects: the text in the cell was centered and made bold, and the color of the cell was changed. This seems undesirable to me. Am I missing something? If someone could provide a sample edit on one row, I'd be happy to go through and do the remaining rows.
Cheers. HausTalk 12:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Haus, I'm happy to support this FLC.
Row headers are desirable because they allow a screen reader to navigate in a non-linear way. For example, a reader could navigate down the Magnitude column and hear "Magnitude" "Alpheratz" "2.06", then "Magnitude" "Ankaa" "2.37", etc. (if Common name contained row headers). Without row headers, they may only hear "Magnitude" "2.06", and so on, which is much less useful.
However, as you found, wikimedia software marks up all wikitable headers as bold and centred with a darker background. We are accustomed to that for the column headers, but it is not what we are used to when we start using row headers. Although this is only an aesthetic consideration, many editors don't like it.
A partial solution is to set the class of the wikitable to "plainrowheaders", which forces row headers to be left-aligned and normal weight (but leaves the darker background to indicate that they are headers). You can see examples of the comparison between row headers and plainrowheaders at Talk:List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders (which is at FLC) as I'm currently searching for consensus on what is best practice to meet the 'visually appeal' FL criterion 5a. I usually arrange tables so that the row headers are placed as the first column to keep the darker background as a kind of border to the rest of the data in a table.
As you can see, incorporating row headers (although desirable for accessibility), entails extra markup and sometimes a restructuring of tables. I don't want this to be seen as a hurdle to FLC, so I'm content to support without them; but if you feel able, then it does add value for a small but significant number of viewers. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The issues I raised have all been addressed. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments :This is a list of selected stars, so the obvious question is "selected by whom?" I'm sort of feeling let down by the list not including why these stars are considered the important ones.
I shouldn't have to follow a link to realise you're discussing apparent, and not absolute magnitude. (though it is obvious from the description if you're familiar with the concept)
Endashes, not hyphens, in page ranges. (ETA: I see you had spaced endashes. The correct fix was to remove the spaces, not go to hyphens)
File:Sekstant.jpg needs a source
File:Bowditch-equatorial-stars-0-180.svg and the rest. Your retouchings are not under the US Navy's PD license. The exception is File:Navigational-stars-below-30-degrees-south.svg, where your work is more unique. The other three need a plain {{PD-USGov}} to remove the language about "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:". A separate tag for your modifications should then be added, a PD one, though, as you have not created a separate copyright from the Navy in these three. The fourth one needs a naval tag and then a tag of your choice, as the derivative work is enough to create a distinct copyright.

Courcelles 05:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, and sorry for my delay in response. As we discussed elsewhere, I had scheduling issues. With the exception of the image tags, on which I have a question, I think I've addressed the issues you brought up:
  • Who selects them & why: added some info and one ref. (diff)
  • Endashes: fixed. (diff)
  • Apparent magnitude: I emphasized this at the first mention, in the table key, and the table header. I think that should cover it? (diff)
  • File:Sekstant.jpg: replaced with File:DN-SD-03-08769.JPEG which is thoroughly sourced & PD. (diff)
  • I'm still trying to absorb the issue(s) with the image tags. All 4 went through the same process: they started out as public domain bitmaps in a book, and I created SVG versions. On the two "round" ones, I chopped off the outer portion to make the inner portion easier to read. I guess my initial response is that you're right that the tags should be changed, but shouldn't they all be consistent?
Cheers. HausTalk 23:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes and no. I started with File:Navigational-stars-above-30-degrees-north.svg, moved all the "data" off the drawing, pasted in the bitmap, and then proceeded as before. I think I see your point now, and will change all four to {{PD-USGov}}. Cheers. HausTalk 23:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All 4 star charts are now {{PD-USGov}} (link). Cheers. HausTalk 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question could a Google Sky image be used in this article? A casual reader will have a really hard time reading any of the maps provided here, but if something more realistic is used, like a view from GS, it would be much more easier. Nergaal (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If possible I think this is a really nice idea... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google Sky is out, as they compile data from NASA (which is free) and the ESA (which can only be used under fair-use) without differentiating what comes from where. You won't be able to justify anything fair-use here, since the free images are adequate. (They are also actual navigational charts, which is sort of the point...) Courcelles 02:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Static photographs of these areas would be much, much more cluttered and hard to make any sense of than the charts. They would show 6,000-ish bodies instead of 58-ish. On the other hand, I suggested long ago adding external links for individual stars to an interactive system like wikisky or google sky so that the reader could explore the area of a star. I never followed up on this because I was sure it would cause a WP:NOTDIRWP:ELPOINTS ruckus. If consensus could be attained here to add a column for google sky links, I'd enthusiastically add it. Cheers. HausTalk 14:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Item #3 of WP:ELYES might support adding links to google sky entries for each star. Cheers. HausTalk 01:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:50, 30 January 2011 (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_list_candidates/List_of_selected_stars_for_navigation/archive1&oldid=1038038493"