Talk:Leo Minor/GA1
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Crisco 1492 in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do this later today. Please note that I am not an expert in astronomy, so I will tend to emphasise readibility from a layman's POV. An early comment, the Matheson, Levy, and Gizis FNs are all broken, while Kaler, Jim. "21 Leonis Minoris" is not used. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Checklist edit
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Fine | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Within definition | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Fine | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Fine | |
7. Overall assessment. | Pending |
Comments edit
- 1
- Richard A. Proctor gave the constellation the name Leaena "the Lioness". - Roughly when? Any reason this name didn't stick?
- There are only three stars brighter than magnitude 4.5, - In the sky, in the constellation,... ?
- Leo Minor does not have an alpha star because Francis Baily erred and designated its brightest star Beta. - When? What is an "alpha star" (link at least). Perhaps if Leo Minor was charted by Baily this could go in
- and designated its brightest star Beta. - Isn't 46 Leonis Minoris the brightest? There's no "Beta" there.
- these two stars as of this magnitude. - Which two?
- The two each other every 38.62 years. - Missing a verb (orbit, I think)
- 21 Leonis Minoris is a rapidly rotating white star around 98 light years away and around 10 times as luminous as our sun. It is spinning on its axis in less than 12 hours and would be slightly flattened in shape. - Shouldn't start a sentence with a number. Also, why "would be"? Is it or isn't it? Or is it likely flattened?
- (a) very hard to rejig when a name stars with a number (which it does)....willl see what I can do. (b) we can't see it as anything other than a point of light, yet physics tells us it will be flattened (though we haven't seen it). Need to think on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did one while copyediting (regarding the numbers) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- (a) very hard to rejig when a name stars with a number (which it does)....willl see what I can do. (b) we can't see it as anything other than a point of light, yet physics tells us it will be flattened (though we haven't seen it). Need to think on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that the secondary star is brighter than expected indicates it is likely two stars very close together and inseparable with current technology. - The old red dwarf? Inseparable in viewing or ...?
- In 2000, it hosted a 17.4 magnitude variable star since determined to be a luminous blue variable and supernova imposter. - The nebula held this star only for a year? That's pretty darn fast, for space.
- Overall it's quite jolty. You should try and use a few more transitions (however, meanwhile) and summarise key points.
- becomes tricky to use contrastives if the two points aren't being contrasted in sources, but I understand. These articles are quite tricky and I will see what I can do. Astronomy can be pretty dry... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll say :-) Don't think there are stars which tell other stars to eat cats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- This constellation is a bit like the Delaware of constellations. I am testing the waters on smaller ones before tackling a biggie like Scorpio or Orion... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, election humour. Well, it's pretty good... just some outstanding issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- This constellation is a bit like the Delaware of constellations. I am testing the waters on smaller ones before tackling a biggie like Scorpio or Orion... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- becomes tricky to use contrastives if the two points aren't being contrasted in sources, but I understand. These articles are quite tricky and I will see what I can do. Astronomy can be pretty dry... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- 2
- Fix the citation needed tag.
- Why not have the citations in two or more columns? Makes the page look neater.
- ISBNs should be 13-digit.
- Strongly suggest archiving the BBC ref and other online references.
- 3
- History is awful short. Anything else available?
- More about the Leonis Minorids... I see no point in keeping a section with a single sentence.
- Has the constellation ever had different interpretations? Spiritual / astrological connotations?
- Hope to do a spotcheck later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Spotcheck
- FN 13 - Title is Praecipua. Otherwise peachy.
- FN42 - All checks out, no close paraphrasing.
- SIMBAD references. I tried two but my eyes started crossing within several seconds.
- On hold for a week to fix the issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, this looks fairly solid now. The grammar has improved (I did some more fixes earlier), but before going to FAC I strongly suggest working on flow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)