Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aries (constellation)/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 16:19, 4 July 2012 [1].

Aries (constellation) edit

Aries (constellation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aries is more well known as a sign of the zodiac than a constellation. Even though it is small and dim, it still has a lot going for it, including some beautiful deep-sky objects and of course, a rich mythology. This mythology is due to the fact that Aries was the location of the vernal equinox in ancient times, when astronomy was just becoming more than a twinkle in human civilization's collective eye. As far as I can tell, this is the most comprehensive article on Aries available anywhere. I hope you enjoy reading and raking it over the coals offering helpful suggestions! ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support now....Comments from PumpkinSky OR raking over the coals as you asked...

  • Image check The image in the infobox is listed as coming from a magazine, which is generally copyrighted, but it's licensed as CC. Can you explain this?
  • Ariesurania.jpg seems clearly PD. While probably not required, could you format it properly and move to Commons? I'm even willing to move to commons for you if you format it more like the infobox one is.
  • Sure, what do you mean by "format properly"? I'm no good with images. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do it in a few minutes, no biggie, just compare the differences. PumpkinSky talk 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I deleted the image so some other poor admin wouldn't have to. Is there anything else I need to do with this image shenanigans? Keilana|Parlez ici 22:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a dragon.[10][2] The Golden Fleece..." the refs should be in numerical sequence
  • Refs 2, 10, 12 are broken, pls fix
  • Ref 50 should be pp not p
More later, this has definite potential, good start. PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! I'm looking forward to hearing more. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges should use endashes per WP:DASH
    • Standardized.
  • FN23: pages?
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
  • Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works
  • Rey ref formatting doesn't match others
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher location for books
  • No citations to Ridpath 2007.

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Keilana|Parlez ici 22:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It's decent overall and probably close to FA ready. I'm a little concerned about the redundant language ("also" and "another") and the occasional, overly brief sentence. I spotted a few spelling errors, so the text should be run through a good spell checker. The first paragraph in the "Stars" section is much too long, making for tedious reading. A few more observations:
    • Thanks for your review! I rewrote what I think to be the vast majority of the redundancies and couldn't find any more spelling errors. How does the language look now? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I think I'll let the grammarians worry about that one. RJH (talk)
  • "Stars within 10.00 pc (32.62 ly)": we need a way to confirm this list. Either the specific stars should be listed in a footnote or else a reference provided to confirm the count.
    • Well, this database lists TZ Arietis and Teegarden's Star, but I can't find any others in Aries. I'll look for another source; do you know of anywhere that may list that? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. The List of stars in Aries article usually lists the distances, so that's a starting point (although it's not a reliable source). It's possible that van Leeuwen (2007) may have parallax values for many of the stars.[2] RJH (talk)
        • Hrmm, I could get parallax values through VIZIER just like I could through SIMBAD, but I can't figure out how to get it to list by constellation or to list within certain coordinates. Any ideas? (For what it's worth, it's very late here and my critical thinking skills go down the toilet late at night.) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As long as the source allows you to look up all of the stars, you could just list the stars in the footnote and provide the single reference. People who need to confirm the membership should be able to perform look ups using the online data link to VizieR from the Bibcode's url. Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Part of my concern with using the list of stars is that it doesn't have a lot of the ridiculously dim but close stars so the number would not be terribly accurate. If I just look at the list, then yes, 4 stars within 10 pc is accurate. I did try to parse van Leeuwen's data but I really have no idea where to start. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Personally I'm okay with just citing the ones we know about. In the footnote you could always just say something like, "The following stars in Aries are known to lie within 10 parsecs", which would be true. I don't think we can hope to be utterly accurate since new stars are still being discovered. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe the hatnote is needed, per WP:NAMB.
  • The first use of absolute magnitude needs to be linked.
  • The first paragraph in the "Stars" section is much too long, making for tedious reading.
    • I broke it up into one paragraph for each of the three prominent stars. What do you think? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NGC 821 is an E6 elliptical galaxy, a type that is fairly rare because it suggests potential early spiral structure": This statement doesn't seem quite correct; E6 only suggests an elliptical (rather than spherical) shape. The suggestion of an early spiral structure is unique to just this E-type galaxy,[3] as this feature is normally found later in a lenticular galaxy.
    • My bad, should have made that clearer. That portion now reads "NGC 821 is an E6 elliptical galaxy. It is unusual because it has hints of an early spiral structure, which is normally only found in lenticular galaxies." How does that look? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strictly speaking, "...which is normally only found in lenticular galaxies" is incorrect. I'd suggest something like "...lenticular and spiral galaxies". Regards, RJH (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...they are often observed in the radio spectrum": "often" is both vague and ambiguous. Perhaps just explain that this is the technique used to observe the meteors.
    • I removed "often"; does that clarify it enough or does it need a further rewrite? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, RJH (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds - I reviewed this for GA and gave it a grilling. My only minor quibble is the In non-Western astronomy is a little bit choppy but given the nature of the information, I have no idea how to rejig it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't know what to do with it either, maybe organize the second half (non-Chinese) into one larger paragraph? Keilana|Parlez ici 05:10, 26 June 2012 (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/Aries_(constellation)/archive1&oldid=1089817895"