Talk:Alpheratz/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the 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. &mdash; 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:
 * I rewrote the lead to confine boldface to the first sentence.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Primary means the bigger or brighter star of the pair, in this case, A. I have attempted to clarify this in the article.
 * I have rephrased the passages in question.
 * Spacepotato (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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 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. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking these comments out of order:
 * The article Andromeda gives the etymology of Andromeda in the first sentence. However, I have expanded the etymology system.
 * 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.
 * Re splitting the "System" section, see my comment 2 above.
 * 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.
 * The references are currently in a consistent format. To quote 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)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: