Talk:Horologium (constellation)

Planets

To explain the "Planets" headline, see Talk:Constellation (Planets in the constellations). — Hurricane Devon (Talk) 19:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Mythology

In Rome there is a big obelisk on a giant sundial type thing, which was erected by Caesar Augustus I believe, but is now mostly buildings. The Ara Pacis -- augustus' monument to peace -- was there as well. Are we to understand that the naming of this constellation is completely unrelated to the Horalogium of Augustus? 71.236.171.69 18:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

NO. Article meets Class C status at present. But I, as a non-astro editor, can say it needs to work up from Start to Class B, and then to GA. I just don't find that much to make it worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Err, @Srich32977: just saw this (dunno how I missed this...) - what do you think it is missing? Everything's referenced as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: I'll add to my comment about being a non-astro editor – I'm basically a non-astro reader as well. (Although I thought Fred Hoyle's Steady State was an elegant explanation of our existence.) This article fails in one important regard – WP:TECHNICAL. – S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: I went through this one a month ago with a view to assessing it. But hit similar problems to above. The review would have involved a lot of repetition of "what does this mean? I left it on my watchlist thinking that if no one else picked it up then I might return to it. If you are up for having a lot of the technical terms poked at for conversion to something a layperson could understand , and non-technical stuff put into context, then I would be happy to pick it up. There is a GA in there (possibly more), but, IMO, it needs a fair bit of work done to draw it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair points - It is hard to know just how much explanation to put in but I will see what I can do...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I confess that I didn't notice who the nominator was, or I may have reacted differently. If you understand that I think that the article needs a fair bit of detechnicalising - without wishing to be dogmatic about how much nor in what way - and would be content with me as an assessor, then I would be more than happy to formally open the assessment and pitch in with suggestions. What say you? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I am happy for you to open a GA review and then we can go through - some material can likely be dejargonised but some may not (it's not too long an article...). BTW it shouldn't matter who the nominator is. My work should be scrutinised just like anyone else's (or vice versa or whatever) ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What I meant is that I currently have a FAC rumbling on where the nominator seems unwilling or unable to use plain English and has accused me of being "condescending"; one of those at a time is sufficient. Realising that a nominator has a track record of taking critical comments on the chin and handling them objectively makes me more prepared to put the work in to communicate where I think dejargonisation may help. I will open the GAN and stand back for a couple of days to see what you do. When things go quiet and/or you give me a nudge I will work my way through the prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. I have tried to add some minor words - some other might require a chunk of context that might be a bit too circumstantial to the article...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Srich32977:, thanks for adding some specifics - it gets tricky here. Stars have naming criteria and they are not strictly alphabetical - so, R Horologii is so named as it was the first variable star identified in the constellation (see Variable star designation - starts at 'R') - this isn't really specific to this star but a naming convention, so the question is how much or how little to add WRT context. Similarly with constellations - I thought it was general knowledge that they are patterns of stars that were originally likened to objects and animals/people. Doe you mean adding this in general or expanding on the bit about scientific instruments...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Re naming: I suggest an explanatory footnote. Next I see the terms "apparent magnitude" and "magnitude"; but astronomy also has absolute magnitude. How does the average reader know that apparent magnitude is the only magnitude (astronomy) being referred to? – S. Rich (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Srich32977:, I have been busy IRL..but have been musing on this. With a footnote on magnitude, the second para of the lead of Magnitude (astronomy) looks a good place to start. How many sentences would you have (of that para) as a footnote and where would hte footnote be linked to? The lead after first mention of magnitude? Or somewhere else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Beta Horologii, source says "In terms of study and examination, Beta Hor does not do much better, the star being cited in just 20 studies over a 150 year period."....i.e. little studied. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: the numbers we see. "The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context" per MOS:LARGENUM. The article's precision varies. – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Srich32977: fair point - but the issue here is that the uncertainty of some measurements is much greater or less than others, so to present the information in its truest form is to list the numbers and the margins of error, which imparts a greater degree of fidelity to the original material Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually we have two issues. One is how precise are the data which the sources provide? Are they guestimating, using a ruler, or something else? And how do the different sources compare? Second, what we providing the readers in terms of readability? E.g., does it help the reader to see some data with a slew of decimal places in one line and then only a few in another line. By rounding to a consistent limit we comply with WP:DETAIL. – S. Rich (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Horologium (constellation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 18:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cas: is this ready for me to look at yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure take a look - navigating between accessability, accuracy and succinctness can be a challenge. How much to leave to bluelinks etc. So all input appreciated. One of the issues is that it is a summary-style article so detailed explanations could go way off topic. Specifically two points raised on the talk about how to shoehorn explanation of apparent vs absolute magnitude and how variations in accuracy are explained. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh joy. Let's see if I can provide anything useful. I have a, probably bad, habit of asking rhetorical questions when reviewing; assume that any question is asked from a hypothetical reader's perspective, rather than because I personally want to know.

• I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

they look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would delete "and one of several depicting scientific instruments" from the lead.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• "only one brighter than apparent (visual) magnitude 4". Suggest changing to 'only one brighter than an apparent magnitude of 4" '.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• "0.603% of the sky" Is that the whole sky or the visible sky?

the whole sky Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Link "chisel", "reticle", "dolphin", "swordfish", and "water snake".

err, water snake is a disambiguation page.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Picky-picky. It is probably not allowed, but the disambig page seems to give a perfectly good short description.

yeah I have linked now. agree it is not a strict disambiguation page as such Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Lacaille charted and designated 11 stars with the Bayer designations Alpha (α Hor) through to Lambda Horologii (λ Hor) in 1756" Consider 'In 1756 Lacaille charted and designated 11 major stars within the constellation, designating them Alpha (α Hor) through to Lambda Horologii (λ Hor).' or similar. (Just a suggestion.)

I tried this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Do we know when Baily "removed the designations ... "

Just been trying (unsuccessfully) to figure that out. He published a few different times in the first half of the 19th century. Source does not specifiy which. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Even 'mid-19th century'or early-19th century' would help.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Kappa Horologii, too, was unable to be verified" Was this also by Baily. Do we know what happened to the designation?

the name just falls out of use essentially Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Consider adding 'and the name fell out of use'.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Gould requires introducing. And, ideally, a date assigning to his work.

aded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Possibly a short final sentence to the paragraph stating how many designated stars the constellation now contains?

you don't think it comes across as too laboured/repetitive? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that it will coming across as "telling a story", which should help with flow and accessibility.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• "light-years distant from Earth" Suggest removing "distant".

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "it has a luminosity of 28 solar luminosities" Umm. Maybe 'it is 28 times brighter than the Sun'?

done (wasn't me what changed it...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "The estimated mass of the disks is (1.3±0.7)×10−3 times the mass of the Earth". Any chance of putting that in non-scientific terms, and footnoting the technical numbers?

converted to a percentage to make more readable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "with one of the widest ranges in brightness" Optional: → 'with one of the widest ranges in variation of brightness'.

Good point...but looks cumbersome...changed to "has one of the largest variations in brightness" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "observations of these two stars were urgently needed" "urgently" seems an odd word, and isn't really explained. How about 'reported that further observations of these two stars were needed as ... '

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "is 1,370 (± 70) light-years distant from Earth" "distant"?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "one of which lay in its circumstellar habitable zone" Optional: → delete "habitable", both here and in the lead.

Err, not sure I follow..circumstellar habitable zone has a very specific meaning. "circumstellar zone" is not an abbreviation for same Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good spot. That was me typing garbage. Sorry. I meant to suggest deleting "circumstellar". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Aaah ok, that makes sense. Done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Horologium is also home to many deep-sky objects; there are several globular clusters in the constellation." Suggest 'Horologium is also home to many deep-sky objects, including several globular clusters.' or similar

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "The globular cluster Arp-Madore 1 is found in the constellation, the most remotely known globular cluster in the Milky Way" Suggest 'The globular cluster Arp-Madore 1 is the most remotely known globular cluster in the Milky Way' I think readers will have picked up the common thread.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "in the process of a lengthy merger which has been going on for 400 million years" Optional: delete "lengthy".

done (lengthy pretty subjective here) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to come back at me over any of those which you don't like. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

almost all are valid and done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Cites 13, 17 should be in title case. Check for others.

there are a few....got em all I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• I note in passing that I consider Ridpath a RS.

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Cite 24 is set up as a Harv ref. It probably makes sense to change it to the same format as the others.

a relic from when more pages were used. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Cite 18 is missing title case; 21, 23 - there is a theme here.

aah, here is the problem - they are part of template:Cite Gaia DR2, which is in sentence case. There is a style issue over whether journal articles use sentence case or title case. Sometimes we've gone with the former, sometimes wth the latter. Loads of articles link to that template. So....either to go back and make all article titles sentence case, or change this template..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Digging into this, it is not as clear cut as I had thought, so fine. Leave it as is.

• I have tweaked cite 34.
• I have archived the web links. Revert if you don't like it.

thanks, that is much appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A fine, detailed, well written and impressively sourced article. Great work. I am more than happy to recognise it as meeting all of the GA criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed