Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caelum/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose 12:29, 14 May 2014 [1].

Caelum[edit]

Nominator(s): StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After the GA review and peer review of this article, in which I've been told that this article is both comprehensive and and understandable, I'm submitting this for an FA review. I also believe that it meets the FA criteria. It's rather short, but as I mentioned, people, including those who are passionate about the subject matter as seen at the peer review believe that it is comprehensive. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

Feel free to disagree with anything I say—not all of it is necessary for FA.

  • Alt text would be nice for the images.
    • I think I've done this correctly...images are not my strong suit. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Latin pronunciation of "Caelum" unacceptible in English?
  • it was formerly known as Caelum Scalptorium: former to de Lacaille's introduction?
    • Appears to be already in the "History" section. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but what I'd meant was that it wasn't clear here that "Caelum Scalptorium" was the name de Lacaille gave it—it could be read as that it had that name before de Lacaille got to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • romanized to Caelum Scalptorium (The Engraver's Chisel): as a translation, should "The Engraver's Chisel" not be in quotes?
  • depicted the name as plural: can you "depict" a word as plural?
  • all have mostly fallen out of use: how can "all" have fallen "mostly" out of use?
  • further at a distance of: you could safely drop "a distance of"
  • so close that they share envelopes: Is there something good to link to here?
  • The other twelve naked-eye stars in Caelum are not referred to by Bode's Bayer designations anymore, including RV Caeli.: citation?
    • This is more a deduction based on the fact that there are no modern sources that I could find that refer to any of the other stars by their Bayer designations. If you think this strays too much into WP:OR territory, I can remove it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does seem like OR to me, but let's see if anyone else objects. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qian, S. -B.; Liu, L.; Zhu, L. -Y.; Dai, Z. -B.; Fernández Lajús, E.; Baume, G. L. (2012): what's with the hyphens? Are they supposed to be there?
Image check[edit]
  • Images are fine—either public domain or appropriately licenced. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Have tinkered with this constellation article a bit as it has been buffed by StringTheory11. Only slight query is a segment that has " consists of four stars, and 20 stars in total" - which should be changed to "4" and "20" or "four" and "twenty" I guess. Otherwise the prose has just the right amount of embellishment to make it flow nicely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've spelled "twenty" out now. Thanks for the support! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: it seems fine. Just one little issue: in the references, "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian" for consistency. Beta Caeli is actually listed as a main sequence star by NStars, but the discrepancy among the sources can be left for astronomers to sort out. Praemonitus (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support constellation was recognized as burin and an échoppe,[4] although it has come to be recognized simply as would benefit from tweaking to avoid the repetition of "recognised", but otherwise looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
    • I'd expect to see the last bit of the first para of Stars cited.
      • Flamsteed only labelled stars that could be seen from his location in Europe, and thus the stars of Caelum were invisible. I could provide a ref to the former fact if you want, and then the conclusion is an obvious-enough inference that I don't believe it would be WP:OR. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mmm, I'm inclined to think that a footnote, worded along the lines of your first statement above and cited as you suggest, might be the way to go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
    • Has anyone done a source review for formatting/reliability? StringTheory, if no-one volunteers soon, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

99of9[edit]

  • I've made a minor edit wikilinking a list of the 88 modern constellations.
  • "NGC 1679, a barred spiral galaxy with a spectrum containing emission lines." I would have thought most galaxies would have emission lines. The cited source doesn't give much context. Maybe this one has more than usual and thus contains hot ISM? --99of9 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason I even included it at all was due to the fact that there's really nothing at all of note in the constellation with regards to deep-sky objects bar the one Seyfert galaxy. I'll just remove the reference to it, as it doesn't seem like a particularly interesting galaxy. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @99of9: ping! StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I'm happy with removal. I haven't done a thorough review, so wont cast a support/oppose. --99of9 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  1. FN 1 Location?
    1. This ref wasn't sourcing anything that couldn't be found elsewhere, so I just removed it and replaced all the references with other ones. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FN 3 + 4 Access date? Publisher?
    1. Added. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FN 5 Why is VA linked? If we want to link the location (and I cannot imagine why) wouldn't it be better to link Blacksburg, Virginia.
    1. Linked Blacksburg. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Compare FN 14, 15 and 17
    1. Made consistent. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: ping! StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jakec[edit]

It looks like a decent article overall (though maybe it could go into more depth about the historical significance of it). I've made a few tweaks here and there while looking over it. All the references are reliable, as they are written by experts in the field or are located in reputable databases. The content cited to Reference 2 does not appear in Reference 2 and some of the content cited to Reference 6 a does not appear in ref 6. Reference 17 also appears to be about the wrong star. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Caelum#Stars is unreferenced. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 13:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 17 fixed. I'll get to the others as soon as I get a chance. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For ref 6 (now ref 1), I'm not seeing what's not from the ref. For ref 2, just click the TXT button next to Caelum, which has all the necessary information. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: ping! StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@StringTheory11: I think it was the content in the notes section, but I saw where that is stated in ref 1. I don't really understand the string of numbers and coordinates in the txt file you mentioned, but perhaps it should link to the actual txt file where the information is located? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Let's hear other's thoughts on the matter, I think, since the TXT itself doesn't provide any context, while the original page does. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't hold up this nomination on that matter though. Since that unreferenced sentence is now referenced, I'll support. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 20:02, 11 May 2014 (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/Caelum/archive1&oldid=1046366747"