Talk:Alpheratz/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA. I will be posting comments below. I would like to say that this seems like a well written and well referenced article with obviously a lot of care put into its development. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bolding in the lead should be confined to the beginning of the article and not scattered throughout. I realize that these are alternate names. I do not know how best to resolve this problem in the article.
• I am wondering if, under System, the last paragraph should not come first as it explains what a system is.
• I think that G-type star should be piped as one link to G-type star, rather than have two adjacent links, one to G-type and the other to star, as G V star link explains that it is a star
• "The double is optical and not a binary star." What does this mean, as I thought that you explained in the article that it was a binary star?
• Variability of primary - this is the first mention of primary. What is meant by this? (Excuse my ignorance!)
• It is best to avoid the passive voice, as it "It is thought that these peculiarities..."; it is better to say who thought this. Another example, "so is thought to be...".

Taking your comments in order:

1. I rewrote the lead to confine boldface to the first sentence.
2. It seemed clearest to develop the facts about the system in the order of their discovery. I have attempted to clarify the meaning of system in the lead.
3. The luminosity class of the G-type star is not known, so it would be misleading to link to G V star, which only discusses stars of spectral type G and luminosity class V. It could be e.g. a giant G-type star of luminosity class III.
4. There are three stars discussed in the article. The first two, A (mass 3.6 solar masses) and Aa (mass 1.8 solar masses) are in close physical proximity. The third, B (mass unknown, spectral type G), appears near to A and Aa on the sky but is not physically associated with them. I have rewritten the article to attempt to clarify this point.
5. Primary means the bigger or brighter star of the pair, in this case, A. I have attempted to clarify this in the article.
6. I have rephrased the passages in question.

Spacepotato (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• since Andromeda (constellation) does not give etymology, I believe there should be some explanation here in the Etymology section.
• what is a "mercury-manganese star"
• I suggest splitting "system": the first paragraph should form an "Observation" and the rest form a separate "Characteristics" section
• I strongly suggest using the {{cite journal}} template which will format the referrences much better.
• "Accessed on line" why is online two separate words? Anyways, I suggest using "Retrieved on". Btw, the citejournal template will automatically format these refs anyways.

Nergaal (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

More comments

• I linked spectral lines; if that is inappropriate feel free to remove it.
• The above suggestions by Nergaal seem like good ones and I see that you have implemented some of them; altogether, the article looks good.
• I recommend you consider using Wikipedia:Citation templates as suggested. It gives a uniform appearance to the citations which is part of the MoS criteria. It provides a cite journal, cite web, cite book etc. format so that all of the details are filled in correctly. It may seem like a bother at first, but a consistent format is required and it will profit you overall to become familiar with using templates for references in this and future articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking these comments out of order:

1. The article Andromeda gives the etymology of Andromeda in the first sentence. However, I have expanded the etymology system.
2. As stated in the section Chemical peculiarities, mercury-manganese stars are a class of chemically peculiar stars which have excesses of mercury, manganese, and other elements in their atmospheres.
3. Re splitting the "System" section, see my comment 2 above.
4. On line is a customary spelling for this adverb. It was more common a few years ago but has declined recently due to the trend in English to close up and de-hyphenate compounds.
5. The references are currently in a consistent format. To quote Wikipedia:Citing sources, "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged."

Spacepotato (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• O.K. Those were just suggestions.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)