Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Auriga (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 Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [1].

Auriga (constellation) edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the next northern constellation article for your collective wonderful consideration. Auriga is a big important winter constellation with a bright, distinctive pentagon pattern. It contains several really lovely star clusters and at least two major scientific conundrums in the stars Epsilon and AE Aurigae. It's in the same vein as the others, sourced to everything I could get my hands on in a 30 mile radius. I hope you enjoy and aren't quite sick of the constellations yet! Keilana|Parlez ici 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Asterism—link at first occurence
  • "One" and "many" overused in lead
  • and who was the charioteer of Oenomaus—lose "who was"
  • a race, designed for suitors—lose comma, "intended" may be better than "designed"
  • Comma's gone and I agree about "intended", that's changed too. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • chariot wrecked—"was wrecked"
  • important religiously—any explanation in what way?
  • 18,000,000 kilometers... 9,600,000 kilometers... 11300000—inconsistent separators, and what's wrong with using millions?
  • 11 miles (18 km) —Why the sudden change to imperial units?. Need to be consistent
  • Other single stars—most of this might be better presented as a table rather than repetitive text
  • Do you think all of it should be presented in a table, or should there be some prose and a table? I know that Andromeda (constellation) and Aries (constellation) didn't need a table, but it's different for a constellation with a massive number of bright stars like Auriga. Another option is removing some of them, but admittedly that's not my first choice. Just thinking out loud here. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on making this section suck less; it's slow going with the amount of time I have but please rest assured I'm digging up more information on the brighter ones and will format a table for the dimmer-but-still-notable ones. Thanks for your patience! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I found some time this morning and I'm satisfied with this section. What do you think? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epsilon Aurigae. Epsilon Aurigae—link with comma, lose one of the names
  • Trumpler class—redlinked and unexplained, what is it?
  • I think it's a redirect to the bit about classification in open cluster. Does it still need explanation? I'm happy to put a sentence in there if it's necessary. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • were observed in California—why such a limited area?
  • Well, the Aurigids were not very well known and not many people believed that they would actually have an outburst then, so only a small handful of people observed it. The Aurigids are also known for being very very short - a few hours at most - so the chances of it being observed elsewhere in the world at random are very low. California was also in the right place for grazing meteors; the observer, Earth, and meteor stream all have to line up for that to happen. Tl;dr - it's an unusual shower that wasn't well observed. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • California time—even as a Brit, I'm pretty sure this isn't a standard time zone
  • Heh, not so much. :P Because that's what the source said, I think I'll leave it but put UTC in parentheses. Is that ok? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm close to supporting, but since there is another list of comments, and you might need to redo the "other single stars", I'll hold off until you've had a chance to deal with these Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the changes, perhaps the table would look better if centred, but no biggie, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My concerns have been addresses and I think it's FA worthy. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Wow, you're sure cranking these out. Good stuff! Here are a few nit-picks:
  • Some of the paragraphs are inordinately long, which can make for tedious reading. Consider splitting up the larger ones.
  • I split up several, hope that helps. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a little better. The long paragraph in "Stars with planetary systems" is perhaps the biggest remaining concern. RJH (talk)
  • Do you have a reliable source for the infobox entry saying this constellation has six planetary systems? I checked the List of stars in Auriga (which is not a reliable source), and one of the six stars that are noted as having planets is also listed as unconfirmed.
  • I found all six listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia and added a subsection to the stars section on the planetary systems. It includes a paragraph on the unconfirmed planet. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Template:Stars of Auriga lists two nearby stars, both of which appear to be within 10 parsecs. The infobox says '1'.
  • I think the lead makes too much fuss about the constellation's size. According to List of constellations by area, it is only 21st on the list; hardly worth a mention.
  • I trimmed it, just gave the area and said it was half the size of Hydra. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This association is supported by the fact that depictions of Auriga rarely show a chariot, because Myrtilus's chariot was destroyed in a race, designed for suitors to win the heart of Oenomaus's daughter, Hippodamia": This sentence is a little awkward and could use some cleanup and clarification.
  • I've rewritten this to say "The association of Auriga and Myrtilus is supported by depictions of the constellation, which rarely show a chariot. Myrtilus's chariot was destroyed in a race intended for suitors to win the heart of Oenomaus's daughter Hippodamia" Is that better? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of "History and mythology" has three consecutive uses of "defined". Could a synonym be used?
  • Yeah, I left one and rewrote the other two as "designated" and "created". Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The primary has a diameter of 18,000,000 kilometers...": My concern here is that listing a star's size in kilometres is not helpful in terms of having lay reader's relate to it. How big is that, really? It's much better to use a comparison with the size of the Sun, for example.
  • Ok, I'd like to leave the number but I added that it was almost 13 times the diameter of the Sun. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two components are separated by 11[,]300[,]000 kilometers": So their separation is smaller than their combined radii? Does this mean they have a common envelope? Again, it may be difficult for the reader to fully grasp this scale without a comparison. I know it is for me.
  • The source wasn't specific about whether or not they have a common envelope but I would assume that they do. I've added a comparison to the Sun's diameter, not sure if anything else is needed there. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, well with all due respect to the source's author, Mr. Moore, I don't think that's true. Torres at al (2009, p. 13) lists them as "well detached". On page 34 of the latter source it lists a separation of 110 million km. You might consider using that ref. for both the radii and the separation. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrmmm. I've used that source for the masses, radii, and separation. I'm just assuming that this is new data that Moore didn't have in 2000; they mentioned in the paper that they had improved over measurements made in 1994. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may well be. But the orbital period seemed too long for it to be a contact binary and a common envelope would have been a prominent feature in the description. Then again they are giants, so what do I know? Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stars are weird! I'm gonna go off the more current source, I think, given that I'm not a professional astronomer (just a student) - I figure the most recent peer-reviewed study is going to have the most current/accurate information. I do agree - if they really did have a common envelope that would have been mentioned in the Torres/Claret/Young paper for sure, as well as in popular sources, given that that's an interesting tidbit. Are you okay with that part of the Capella paragraph as it stands, or do you think it needs tweaking? Thanks again for picking up on that - I totally missed it. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in the same paragraph the text switches to using astronomical units rather than km.
  • I don't particularly care either way; which do you think I should use? (or should I use both?) Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, well it's not a major problem I guess. RJH (talk)
  • First use of "absolute magnitude", "light-year", and "eclipsing variable star" should be wikilinked.
  • "It is moving towards Earth at a speed of about 11 miles (18 km) per second." Umm, actually not, because it has a non-zero proper motion. The component of its motion in the direction of the Earth is 18 km/s.
  • Astronomy fail. Fixed - this is why I need to get my degree... I stole your wording (with edit summary attribution) if that's ok. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you have the first instance of M☉ wikilinked, but really, what readers are going to know this means the mass of the Sun (except for astronomy weenies like me)? I'd like to suggest that the first instance do something like this: 3.09 times the Sun's mass (M☉).
  • Astronomy weenies are the best kind of weenie. :) I've taken your suggestion. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all sources list Beta Tauri as a B-type giant star. O-type stars are massive things, so the distinction is kind of important.
  • Hrm, not sure what's up with that. I've fixed it & sourced to SIMBAD. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Other single stars" section is pretty dry reading. The text essentially consists of a series of star names, types, absolute magnitudes and distances. I'm not sure it is quite engaging enough.
  • Yeah, I'm working on this. I'm adding more to the bright ones/the ones where there's something interesting going on; the other dim-but-notable ones I'll stick in a little table in the bottom. Thanks again for your patience! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some work on it last night and this morning, how does it look now? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks much improved. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Upsilon Aurigae, what is a "GM1-type star"? The 'G' looks like a typo.
  • It was, I must have mistyped. It's corrected in the table now. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Eclipsing variable stars" section, the second instance of Epsilon Aurigae is linked rather than the first. It's also a bit redundant to start the second sentence with the end of the first.
  • For Zeta Aurigae, this is a binary system so there are two classifications visible; a K-type bright giant and a B-type main sequence star. The description makes it seem like it is only a K-type star.
  • Fixed that by moving the spectral type to the description of the primary, where it belongs. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but it varies irregularly": in magnitude? Some stars vary in other ways.
  • "...in aperture to distinguish": usually the word "resolve" is used here, per Optical resolution.
  • Heh, that's what I get for trying to shake it up. ;) Fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...making it the richest cluster in Auriga": Which, the 150 total stars or the orange star at the center?
  • Clarified that it's the number of stars, not the pretty orange one. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some good material in this article, but I'm not convinced it's quite up to satisfying the FA criteria yet. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so much for the comments. I will definitely get to them in the next couple of days, please don't think I'm ignoring them! Real life is being particularly hard right now and the past few days have been spent entirely handling all that - not much energy is left for wiki-matters. I'm trying, I'll try to get through a few tonight but any major things ("Other single stars") will likely wait a couple of days. I'm really sorry and want to give your comments the time and attention they deserve, it just may take longer than I'd hoped. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm in no hurry. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for waiting. I think I've taken care of all your comments; would you mind taking another look? I really appreciate the help. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8/18 Additions
  • I notice that the article uses units of 'miles' in a number of locations. Since this is primarily a science article, WP:UNITS indicates that kilometres should be used instead. Astronomical units are okay since they are specialized units in astronomy.
    • I should probably read the MOS someday. :P Fixed with {{convert}}. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well normally the SI units would go first, but close enough. Thanks. RJH (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the stars don't include the luminosity class that forms part of the Morgan-Keenan system. This is particularly so for the table in the "Other bright stars" section. I'm not quite clear why that is being left out since it can tell us something about the star's evolutionary stage. It's okay to leave this out if the star's evolutionary stage is already described, but I think not otherwise.

Otherwise this looks FA-worthy and I'm ready to support. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the additional comments! I've added the luminosity classes where not already discussed, sourced to SIMBAD. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queries.

  • I stared at the image of M38, and I cannot for the life of me see what the text describes as "a cross-shaped or pi-shaped object in a telescope and contains approximately 100 stars". I accept that reliable sources may describe M38 in this way, but it doesn't help a lay reader if the available image doesn't appear to support that.
    • Here's an illustration. I think that astrophotos can tend to wash out what is seen with the eye because more stars are made visible. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks RJH, I also found this and this, which show it pretty well. Would it help if I clarified that telescopic views are different from photographic ones in either the text or a caption? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we want clarifying text. To be blunt, we either need an image where a lay person can see the pattern, or we remove the reference to the distinctive pattern in the caption (ugly but probably acceptable solution). Given the image has to be licenced as free, you may be stuck with the current one. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't it be acceptable to just include an explanation as to why the feature is not visible in the photo? Alternatively, I think the image could be copied and modified to outline the feature. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've changed the caption to say "A photograph of M38; its characteristic shape, clearly visible to an observer in a telescope, is obscured by the greater number of stars revealed by a long-exposure photograph." How does that look? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if there isn't a free image that actually shows the distinctive form, that your solution is an acceptable one. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a redlink for "orange supergiant". WP has a well-developed series of articles on stars, including luminosity classes, and this isn't mentioned. My first impulse was to create a stub, but my attempts to google the term (both mainstream and Scholar) suggest to me that it is not a valid encyclopedic term. Rather, there are stars that are red supergiants and look orange to our eye.

hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I think that got sorted with the luminosity classes I added earlier. It's now described as an orange-hued supergiant, which is accurate to the spectral class as far as I can tell. It's a K-type star, which means it appears orange, and its luminosity class is I (supergiant). Does that look better to you? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions need significant editing. "Urania's Mirror" caption is ambiguous. Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Encyclopedic tone and wording should be observed throughout.
    • I've removed the periods and edited the Urania's Mirror one. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IAU copyright page seems to suggest that attribution is requested in the caption itself (looking at the YouTube example as an analogue to this situation)
    • Hm, I'm not sure about that - you definitely know more than I do - but it just says that the credit can't be disassociated from the image, and I would think the IAU logo in the bottom right of the map is pretty clear. If you still think I should add it to the caption, I absolutely will, just wanted to clarify first. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aurigaurania.jpg needs US PD tag
    • I added {{PD-1923}}, as it was published in London, not the US. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what source was File:Capella-Sun_comparison.png based?
    • I don't know, and its creator seems to be inactive. Should I remove it? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:M36_2mass.jpg: first licensing tag appears to be incorrect - the image was funded by, not created by, NASA. Based on the source link it's still PD, just not by the current reasoning
    • Ah, it's under the same license as File:M37.jpg, I changed the tag accordingly. Keilana|Parlez ici
  • File:M37.jpg: not sure why second licensing tag applies.
    • Me neither. I removed it as the first seems to cover it pretty clearly. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments reading through now. I passed this article at GAN and will give it the extra scrutiny for FAC here....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lead has "eclipsing binary" but "eclipsing variable" is written elsewhere. Personally I find the former more accurate but the latter term is in widespread use. Given this the choice of the latter is not a deal-breaker for FAC as such, but article needs to be consistent whichever one is chosen...
However, this may have represented just Capella (alpha Aurigae) or the modern constellation as a whole.. "alpha Aurigae" only part capitalised here....

Above are only minor quibbles - this looks good to go otherwise....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • The book ref does not have page numbers: "sfn|Moore|Tirion|1997|p=" in any time it's used
    • I fixed two cases of refs not being in sequence. Pls fix the rest.
PumpkinSky talk 00:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and source check. Support now and all refs look reliable. PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • To be ridiculously fussy, "nearby Epsilon Aurigae is an eclipsing binary with an unusually long period and has been studied intensively" is ambiguous ... well, if you don't have the context. You could try "Epsilon Aurigae, a nearby eclipsing binary with an unusually long period, has been studied intensively". Or "The nearby ...". I've borrowed this for my "Spot the ambiguity" exericises.
    • I'm honored! I chose your first option thinking that it fit in better. Thanks.
  • Theme and rheme: you might consider changing the "this is what I'm going to tell you about" opening, from "Auriga's stars" to "In Chinese mythology", which is a nice fresh contrast with the previous thematic flow: "In Chinese mythology, Auriga's stars were incorporated into several constellations, including the celestial emperors' chariots, made up of the modern constellation's brightest stars." You be the judge. Then, "Auriga is home to ...", to make the referent clear.
  • Watch the back-referring "it" ... always check to see that the referent is clear; even experts would like this: "It was alternatively called ...". What is "it"? Apply that same technique for clear cohesion as you've done further down in the Myrtilus/Pelops sentence.
    • Rewritten as "The first record of Auriga's stars was in Mesopotamia as a constellation called GAM, representing a scimitar or crook. However, this may have represented just Capella (Alpha Aurigae) or the modern constellation as a whole; this figure was alternatively called Gamlum or MUL.GAM in the MUL.APIN." Is that alright? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphing clashes with the topical theme: "However, Auriga is sometimes named as Myrtilus, who was Hermes's son and the charioteer of Oenomaus ...". The close back-reference of "however" has to jump across that gap you put there. So try medial position: "Auriga, however, is sometimes named as Myrtilus, who was ...". But I wouldn't balk if you decided to leave as is.
    • That does help the flow. I changed it as you suggested. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • His stepmother Phaedra committed suicide because he spurned her advances? If so, make it clear.
    • Yeah, it's a little creepy. I clarified it by adding "as a result" to the end of that sentence. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is likely that it was" ... could you substitute the referent for the second "it", in this thematic equative (the first "it" is still the subject of the whole clause, of course).
    • Since the first clause of that sentence had "Auriga", I rewrote the phrase as "it is likely that the constellation was". Is that okay? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "17th century France"—hyphen.
  • "The two components are separated by 110 million kilometers."—it's fine, but if you want to excite the non-scientists, you could add "a little more than two-thirds of the distance between the Earth and the Sun" ... if my hunch is right. No big deal, just an idle suggestion.
    • I agree, I've added "almost 75% of the distance between the Earth and the Sun", as it's just a touch more accurate. Thanks for the suggestion! Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the rest; the writing is pretty good so far. Well done. Tony (talk) 12:07, 1 September 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/Auriga_(constellation)/archive1&oldid=1089817870"