Wikipedia:Peer review/Proxima Centauri/archive1

Proxima Centauri edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about the nearest star to the Sun. Based on the currently available sources I think it is a fairly comprehensive high-level treatment. Do you have any thoughts on improvements?

Thank you, RJH (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think it is pretty close to FA as is, so here are some fairly nit picky comments for improvement. I also note I am not an astronomy expert, so I may have missed something obvious to someone who is.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Barnard's Star, Sirius and Tau Ceti are all star FAs and may be useful models
I agree that the lead needs to be expanded. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - Please see WP:LEAD
Somewhere I would note where on Earth one can observe this star (with a telescope). My understanding is that you have to be in the southern hemisphere or close to it to do so. Perhaps in the Observation history section
In the Characteristics section, I would put the apparent magnitude into context even more by mentioning the lowest magnitude that is visible to the naked eye. See WP:PCR
I would also spell out VLTI - avoid or explain jargon
This needs a ref, and is the only place I could find that does - Other scientists, especially proponents of the Rare Earth hypothesis, disagree that red dwarf stars can sustain life.
Oops, this in a footnote also needs a ref: By comparison, the Apollo 10 achieved a record velocity of 11 km/s.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes your comments were helpful. I do the occasional PR here as well.—RJH (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad they helped and hope you get some more comments. I have seen your reviews and appreciate them - I have a standard closing statement I paste in, perhaps I should change it? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to change it on my account. Thank you. =) —RJH (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik comments: I agree the article is close to FA. However I has some comments.

1) "These flares can grow as large as the star and reach temperatures of 2 million K[9]—hot enough to radiate X-rays." The cited temperature is not supported by refs. This temperature probably corresponds to the quiescent corona, not to flares. The flare temperatures are usually 10⁷ K or higher. The part about coronal/chromospheric activity should be expanded should be expanded (see [1], [2], [3], [4]), and include something about mass loss and stellar wind. Some numbers for X-ray flux and energy of flares would be helpful too.

2) "Proxima Centauri is orbiting through the Milky Way at a distance from the galactic core that varies from 8.313–9.546 kpc and with an orbital eccentricity of 0.069."—impossible precision.

Probably. I just used what was published, but I've reduced the precision in the article.—RJH (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) It should be mentioned (In 'Possible companions' subsection) that the activity of the star makes RV (and transit to some extent) search of planets difficult. So one should not expect spectacular results.

4) Some will complain about the use of {{e}} template.

5) The star has a high density. It think this fact should be mentioned in the text (and infobox).

Ruslik (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]