Talk:Betelgeuse/Archive 1

Roarer/Announcer
I'm removing the reference to Betelgeuse being the first star of Orion to rise, since this is probably not correct. Bellatrix rises before Betelgeuse, and on much of the globe (probably for the ancient greeks and arabs too) Rigel also rises before Betlegeuse.

Furthermore, there's a nearby star (in the constellation Canis Major) that is know as Roarer (Murzim), so I'm removing this as well.

I've searched the web for combined references to Betelgeuse/Roarer and Betelgeuse/Announcer, and most if not all of the sites returned are mirrored Wikipedia articles. Others mention that the title of Roarer/Announcer has also been applied to Bellatrix, which would certainly be more correct.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spazzm (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 September 2004 (UTC)

Diameter/Radius
There is a (large) difference between the values of the radius in the table and the diameter. Which one is the right one? Gunnar Larsson 23:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Britannica concise encyclopedia 2005, Serbian edition states that Betelgeuse is 500 times larger than the Sun in radius, and the brightest star of the Orion constellation. In our article is stated that Betelgeuse is 650 times larger then the Sun in radius, and that is SECOND brightest star of the Orion? OK, we have already discussed about radius, but what is actually truth when it comes to brightness, (that should be fairly easy to determine)? -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  19:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Encyclopædia Britannica says (rightly) that Rigel is the brightest star in Orion. On the other hand, Betelgeuse is a variable star. At its brightest, it is almost as bright as Rigel. It may have been sometimes even brighter than Rigel. That may be the reason why it's the alpha star and not Rigel. But that cannot be confirmed. And Bayer atlas is full of such irregularities anyway.--Jyril 21:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Bayer's catalogue doesn't necessarily classify the brightest star of each constellation as "alpha" to begin with. In this case, it was probably one of those rare occasions when Betelgeuse was even with Rigel, which does happen on rare occasions. However, it's safe to say that Betelgeuse is the most noteworthy star in Orion, even if Rigel is a little brighter, and might have been "alpha" for that reason alone. (Ex: We never made a movie called Rigel, did we?) Bayer did this in Draco. Thuban isn't anywhere near the brightest star in Draco, but it's still Alpha Draconis because of its historical significance of being the north pole star in ancient Egypt. John (70.144.177.45) 16:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Age
The top of this article appears to contradict the lower part of this article on the age of this star. Also, Please see, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090609-betelgeuse-measurements.html (this is my first ever wiki edit so please excuse me if this is the wrong way)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.86.231 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really only 6 000 000 years old as the infobox says? I thought stars were much older than that! I had a look at other red giants' infoboxes but they were unknown. Or is this just an estimation of how long the red giant phase of it is? Or am I an idiot who's forgotten how to read standard form? --86.130.152.12 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The more massive the star is, the faster it uses its hydrogen supply. A star less than 30 MSun spends 1010/Mass3 years in the main sequence. For Betelgeuse, the time is somewhere between 2 and 6 million years (if the star's mass is between 12 and 17 MSun). In addition, the star spends maybe a couple of million of years as a post-main sequence star. Anyway, I'd like to see the source of that value.--Jyril 12:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Exaggerated variation?
In the article it suggests that the diameter of Betelgeuse varies by (almost) a factor of two with time. All the papers I have seen which give accurate diameters for Betelgeuse quote numbers in the range 0.049 arcseconds to 0.060 arcseconds for the uniform disk diameter in red light -- i.e. varying by about 20 % (there are very much larger values in the UV, where you are just measuring the size of the corona rather than the star itself, and different for "limb-darkened diameters", which is a quite different type of measurement). Now there are a couple of "wild" diameter measurements but these were done using very innacurate techniques, so I don't think they show evidence for big variability in the diameter. Does anyone know where the factor of two variation quoted in the Wikipedia article comes from?

Rnt20 14:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know the source of that info but a factor of two for the diameter does sound a bit much.--Kalsermar 16:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now replaced the diameter figures in the article, as discussed at Talk:Betelgeuse. Rnt20 16:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Astrology out of these articles!
Please, put astrology somewhere out of the astronomy articles! Or should I put a sci-fi novel about Betelgeuse in the article? There is science and there are borders to it, all the rest, whether astrology or science fiction, is human invention.
 * I agree that astrological information should be kept to a bare minimum in astronomical articles and I have been trying to edit some of that stuff out of certain articles as I come across them. A short mention of astrological importance with appropriate internal link is different of course.--Kalsermar 13:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with putting astrology in a clearly labelled section. Science fiction would also be fine assuming it is sufficiently notable.  --Doradus 14:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Astrology, although being nonsense, has considerable cultural and historical value. Anything that can be considered as "notable" should be included in these articles (for example, Algol being the Demon Star). However, it is important that astrology shouldn't be mixed with the facts in the articles.--Jyril 14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stadium
Texas Stadium was chosen because it's about the right size. Is there some reason we should want to be less specific? --Doradus 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Betelgeuse diameter
It is not logic that Betelgeuse shows a diameter of "only" 650 times the Sun according its characteristics.

Based on its parameters I.C. =1.86; Mabs = -5.14 we get, Rs = 10^ (0.82*IC - 0.2*M + 0.5) = 1130 times the Sun. For I.C.=1.77 as listed, we get R = 954 Rs, 30% larger that the one listed ! In practice there are consensus to consider that the surface of Betelgeuse is over 1000 times of the sun, thus reaching 1.5 billions km, equivalent to the distance to Saturn... Please correct the table consequently.

PS. Parameters of giants stars are difficult to get as the Mass-Luminosity relation does no more apply. But spectroscopic parallax allow us to get quite accurate figures -Luxorion.


 * NB for large stars like betelgeuse, I think astronomers normally simply measure the diameters rather than estimating them theoretically. Examples of recent measurements of Betelgeuse include:


 * Interferometric observations of the supergiant stars α Orionis and α Herculis with FLUOR at IOTA, Feb 2004
 * New views of Betelgeuse: multi-wavelength surface imaging and implications for models of hotspot generation, January 2000


 * I assume that the sizes quoted on Wikipedia would be the measured sizes, and not some kind of theoretical estimate. If the Sun's diameter $$D_{\bigodot}$$ is 1.4 million km, then $$650\times D_{\bigodot}$$ is 900 million km. Similarly if you take the measured angular diameters (0.049 to 0.060 arcseconds) and the distance (427 ly) you get diameters around 900 million km, so it seems reasonable. Rnt20 13:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Section 6 of the IOTA reference gives a derived $$R_{\alpha Ori} = 620 \pm 124 R_{\bigodot}$$. (The linear-model radii was 645 ± 129.) That looks like the most recent estimate, so it's probably the best available. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Angular diameter
You should add angular diameters of the star in milliarcseconds to every star articles that has starbox with the astrometry subbox. Copyright:18 December, 2006 at 01:50 UT
 * Angular diameters are only available for nearby, giant stars. The majority of stars with astrometric data won't have this available. So I think it's sufficient to cover a measured angular diameter in the text. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple star system
I see references on the web (such as & ) that Betelgeuse is a multiple star system (between 4 & 6 stars in total depending who you read). Surely this should be mentioned ? Even if the article focuses on the main 'big' star, some details on the companions (if they exist), their sizes, classes, distance, etc, should be added ? The Yeti 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So have I, also seen it is a Nature guide. 205.240.146.156 07:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * More links to Betegeuse's multiple star status:, & . The Yeti (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
"also written Betelguese and Betelgeux" suggests that these are acceptable variant spellings of the name. They're not. This would be like saying "mischievous (also written mischevious"). We shouldn't be supporting inaccurate spellings. Redirects have their place, but that should be as far as it goes. I've removed the offending words. JackofOz 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the following link (from a scientific site) provides some variant names. . The Yeti (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of AGB star
Betelgeuse might be an AGB star. If so, Betelgeuse is not a true supergiant and the mass is below 8 solar masses.

In contrast, Antares should be ( or must be ) a true supergiant because the estimated mass is 15.5 solar masses and the estimation is relatively precise. Antares is a binary star. The mass is calculated from orbital motion of the binary.

The luminosity of low mass (but true) red supergiants with 8-15 solar masses and most luminous AGB stars is almost equal. But comparing the peak of luminosity, the luminosity of true low mass red supergiants is slightly greater.

Reference URL: Magnetic activity in late-type giant stars: Numerical MHD simulations of non-linear dynamo action in Betelgeuse

Evolution of low and Intermediate mass stars

Kometsuga 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That article is highly speculative, even to the point of trying to attribute a magnetic field (a property of AGB stars) to Betelgeuse when none has ever been observed.

Betelgeuse is 427 light-years from us. The possibility that it just happens to be an unusually powerful AGB of right about 8 solar masses is far less than it being an ordinary (in a stellar sense) medium-heavy supergiant of about 15 solar masses. Jsc1973 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of the few stars we actually have pictures of? --Doradus 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Betelgeuse Mass and white dwarf
It is said in this article, that the star's mass is 14 times greater that the sun's mass. However, in the next paragraph it is said that it will collapse to a white dwarf. Now, it is well known that stars with mass greater than 1.44 time the mass of the sun, will collapse to neutron star, and stars with more the 3.5 times the mass of the sun will collapse to black holes. --87.68.16.90 15:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The 14 solar mass value is the entire mass of Betelgeuse, the core mass that's relevant for determining if it collapses to a neutron star or black hole can be less than the 1.44/3.5 limits even though the star as a whole is more than that. Also stars can lose a lot of mass before the core becomes unsupported by fusion. --128.220.101.100 01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Betelgeuse is not a hypergiant star
I had a comment about this statement in the section about the future of Betelgeuse: "However, if Betelgeuse's axis (one of its poles) is pointed towards Earth there would be tangible effects here." This seems to be referring to what occurs when a star explodes as a hypernova (gamma ray and particle jets extend from both poles as the black hole forms in the core of an exploding hypergiant). This only occurs with the most massive of stars and Betelgeuse is not the right class of star to do this. If it were to explode as a type II supernova, there would be no effective difference in the radiation at Earth between it being pole-on or equator-on. --128.220.101.100 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"As seen from" Image is not accurate
I've listed a few objections about the large "Betelgeuse as seen from 8AU" image displayed on this page. I added these concerns to the Image_talk:Betelgeuse_viewed_from_8au.jpg page. Suffice it to say that the apparent size of an object projected onto a 2D surface depends on many factors not covered by the Image description, such as Field of View, focal length and how far away you should be sitting from your monitor. And I did not even mention that displaying the image as any sort of thumnail completely invalidates the associated caption! I recommend that WP avoids these "as seen from" images and sticks to relative size comparisons, since the latter are far less ambiguous. GreyWyvern 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not thrilled with these pictures, but I don't think the issues you mention are important if the two images are meant to be taken as a pair and compared with each other. --Doradus 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then at least the images should be merged so the paired comparison is obvious. Without obvious mention or indication that the two are a relative comparison set, the sizes displayed are simply not the sizes one would actually see at those distances. GreyWyvern 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also dislike the many Celestia images spread across articles like this one. It's not that the software is bad at emulating celestial events as it's fairly accurate at that, but it's also full of shortcomings that I think makes it unsuitable to use in Wikipedia, at least for these extreme purposes where we have moved outside our solar system. For example, the first picture is lacking a lot of information that would decide how "large" we see it and it is not just a matter of moving the cam in Celestia 8 AU away! Similarly, on the second image, our sun probably do not have such a huge halo, and neither will it be as yellow like that from outside an atmosphere. Heck, Betelgeuse is probably in the wrong color too. I personally think these kind of simulated images do more harm than good, really, and I've said this elsewhere. -- &mdash; Northgrove 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They're too speculative and could accidently mislead readers, so I've rm'd them (cool pix though). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The stars future not up to wikipedia standards - read for fun only.
I'll highlight a few words that read like a whimsical newspaper article. But I don't care -- this is just for fun. -- Astronomers predict that Betelgeuse will ultimately undergo a type II supernova explosion although it is possible that the mass is low enough for Betelgeuse to leave a rare oxygen-neon white dwarf. Opinions are divided as to the likely timescale for this event. Although Betelgeuse is only around 10 million years old, some regard the star's current variability as suggesting that it is already in the carbon burning phase of its life cycle, and will therefore undergo a supernova explosion at some time in the next thousand years or so. Skeptics dispute this contention and regard the star as being likely to survive much longer. There is a consensus that such a supernova would be a spectacular astronomical event, but would not — being so distant — represent any significant threat to life on Earth.

Even so, Betelgeuse would brighten at least 10,000 times as a supernova, causing it to shine with the luminosity of a crescent Moon. Some sources predict a maximum apparent magnitude equal to about that of the full Moon (mv = -12.5). This would likely last for several months. It would look like a brilliant point, the brightness of a full Moon with the color of an incandescent bulb at night, and easily visible in daylight. After that period it would gradually diminish until after some months or years it would disappear from naked eye view. Then Orion's right shoulder would vanish for a time until, in a few centuries, a splendid nebula would develop. However, if Betelgeuse's axis (one of its poles) is pointed towards Earth there would be tangible effects here. A shower of gamma rays and other cosmic particles would be directed at Earth. There would be spectacular aurorae and possibly a measurable diminution of the ozone layer with consequent adverse radiation effects on life. In such an orientation towards the solar system it would also appear many times brighter than if its axis were pointed away.

So many "Woulds", Predictions, Opinions, Suggestions, Disputes, contentions, likelihoods, and in general grand statements stated as truth about a future possible-event without so much as a single reference/citation..!

I'm not saying that everything in the section is incorrect, only that it's far out of WP guidelines and really really ought to have some references...!

Anyway, this section just shown brighter then a full crescent moon of fluffy uncited vague original reasearch[Wikipedia:NOR] and I thought it was worth a good laugh. Have a great day and keep up the good work. -Jesse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.180.232 (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, it is not suitable work and may be OR. (Part of the reason I gave up trying to get this page up to GA.) I would like to see it get to something comparable to IK_Pegasi. But if it can't be nailed down with citations, that section should probably be (mostly) scrapped. In my opinion, anyway. =) Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added an OR tag. Fun read but there is far too much uncited, rambling speculation here, so I'd be ok with rm'ing anything uncited. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Having come back 2 days later, carefully re-reading and studying the section and even trying to clean it up, I found nothing about it which was supported by a citation, so I've rm'd the whole section for now. The notion of a colour change over the past 2000 years is interesting and maybe citations supporting this will show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree sounds a bit vague. The book I just read on Sirius had a similar future section and I debated about whether or not to add it, but we'd then end up adding one of either 2 or 3 future pathways to all stars depending on their mass. The bit on supernova is a bit interesting but could be condensed to 2-3 sentences but only if a reliable source could be found.


 * BTW, Gwen are you tackling into this with a view to having a go at GA and maybe FA? I was musing on orders of headings etc. and was trying to streamline this (like those on Sirius) across some star articles I was working on. Can't rally call a single star a 'system' though.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the catch, lots of this speculation about what may happen to a star can more or less be said about any other star like it and as you imply, this speculation quickly leads to many reasonable pathways depending mostly on mass (we think so far and so on). As for the timing of when Betelgeuse may supernova, only with a citation or two, as you say.


 * GA is tough (as it should be) but come to think of it, this article may not be so far from it after all. Oh and speaking of "systems," for all we know Betelgeuse has already gobbled up some rocky planets and burned off a few gas giants, hence the sprawling "atmosphere." I'd forgetten it was that young! :) Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an editor, just a Wikipedia reader. I think the section above concerning the Betlegeuse supernova (minus the bolding of words of course) should be inserted into the article.  Yes, the passage does state preconditions that need to be met, but it is factually correct (lots of corroborating articles out there) and speaks of the most anticipated supernova ever.  Betlegeuse is one of the largest stars in the known universe, and quite famous as Orion's shoulder.  This celebrity star is dying, and when it goes it will light up the Earth with the brightness of a second moon.  Those set of facts are absolutely fascinating.  The article does a disservice to its readers by not even mentioning the death of Betlegeuse.  Any good astronomer should know all about the impending death of this beloved giant, or they simply aren't a very good astonomer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.19 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This really needs to be mentioned. It's the only reason I (and probably most others) even bother researching Betelgeuse here. It was a big dissapointment not seeing it mentioned and led me to believe it was all just a myth until I read this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtfish (talk • contribs) 12:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Without reliable sources, it's all but fun talk and shouldn't be carried in the article text. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone sourced the star's fate. There is a chance the detonation could kill all life on Earth. Powerzilla (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the current status of speculation about Betelgeuse's fate is, but this phrase puzzles me: "Since its rotational axis is not toward the Earth..." this star's supernova would not harm Earth. I've looked elsewhere in Wikipedia, but can't find anything about the process of supernova that mentions rotational axis - as if the explosion is forced out through the poles or something, I guess. Could someone who knows elaborate on this, both here and in the supernova entry? I realize that it could still be speculation because there's more that isn't known than is known about stars, but I for one would like to see the reasoning behind this statement - especially in light of the fact that Betelgeuse could already have gone supernova and we just haven't seen it yet, and maybe the rotational axis actually is toward the earth, or maybe the axis doesn't enter into the equation at all, and in either case we're all doomed! Thanks. Wlegro (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is relevant for gamma ray bursts, see e.g. here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dodgy reference
This reference currently reference 18 in the article, appears to be citing the fact that if the star went supernova it would be brighter than a full moon. The source says it would be a over million times brighter not just brighter although this is probably absolute magnitude not apparent magnitude, but it doesn't state this, it is not the same as the fact it is citing.

Also this article states the star is 640 light years away, but the above reference states it is both about 1000 light years away, and 520 light years away, not 640. It seems odd to include a source that verifies one statement but contradicts others in the article, it makes the source, or the article look unreliable or untrue. Carlwev (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The latest (2008) distance is estimated at 640, it's cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, maybe you could fix this estimate of 427 LY? The cite is a good one but from 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova#Impact_on_Earth. I'd do it if I knew how and actually knew the subject. Thanks. Wlegro (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture Caption
"Betelgeuse is the upper left star (pink arrow) in the rectangle of bright stars in Orion."

Now, I'm no master of geometry, but isn't a rectangle a shape with our parallel sides and all right angles? No part of Orion matches that definition. Shouldn't this be reworded?69.206.173.116 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reworded. 84user (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrinkage
Many sources are reporting on the Charles Townes and Edward Wishnow presentation at an American Astronomical Society meeting and in the June 1 Astrophysical Journal Letters indicating that the star has shrunk by over 15 percent. I've given two sources for this in the article, one that reports on the science and one that's a major press piece focusing on the speculation. Please feel free to clean up my refs (been a while since I edited here), but I do think that both the science and how it's being portrayed in the media are of value, here. -Miskaton (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

New images
New suitable images at "Sharpest views of Betelgeuse reveal how supergiant stars lose mass", ESO.ORG. Seems that the copyrights are std eso: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Distance
Current wikipedia ref (resolves to http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.1430H) gives a disdance of ~640 l.y. (~191parsecs), not ~430 l.y. as of 2008 Sigoldberg1 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the value for the parallax preferred in is 5.07 &plusmn; 1.10 milliarseconds, which means a distance of 200 &plusmn; 40 parsecs, or 640 &plusmn; 140 light years.  This is the distance we should use in the article. Spacepotato (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Distance stated as 570 light years then in next section as 640 light year distance so I added a quote from one of the citations "Direct parallax measures from space, using the most modern results, give 495 light years, whereas the parallax using the star's natural radio emission gives 640 light years." To explain the use of the average value of 570 light years. Someone who knows more than I do can refine this so that either 570LY or 640LY is used in both locations.Canuck100 (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

About Japanese name of Betelguse
Dont revert it. I am a Japanese. I can read Daijirin p.810 and p.2327. The p.810 said about Rigel and p.2327 said about Betelgeuse. Please look up the refarence No.14 ja:ベテルギウス. See you again !! --58.85.19.159 (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Diameter
What is the actual diameter of Betelgeuse ? In the article 1e12 metres I see: 1200 million km; but the Betelgeuse article mentions this:
 * 290 million km -- 1.9 AU -- Minimum diameter of Betelgeuse
 * 480 million km -- 3.2 AU -- Maximum diameter of Betelgeuse

and these numbers are also copied in 1e11 metres. In the NASA makes a claim that is compatible with the first measure, not the last ones: If placed at the center of our Solar System, it would extend past the orbit of Jupiter. I'm not an astronomer, so I can't tell which is true. -- FvdP 12:34 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)

The discussion continues in Talk:1e12 metres -- FvdP


 * Note that there are many different radii for supergiant stars like Betelgeuse. For example the disk of Betelgeuse looks about twice as large in the UV as in the infrared, whereas the gas density radius is completely different to both of these. Rnt20 3 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

Bizzarely the diameter measurements quoted in the article (290 million km -- 480 million km) disagree completely with all the sources given and all the discussion on this talk page. If the Sun's diameter $$D_{\bigodot}$$ is 1.4 million km, then $$650\times D_{\bigodot}$$ is 900 million km. Similarly if you take the measured diameters (0.049 to 0.060 arcseconds) and the distance (427 ly) you get diameters around 900 million km. I'm going to change the article as this seems ridiculous. Rnt20 15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the source of the mass and diameter data? AxelBoldt 20:50 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

In response to the conflict in which orbit it would reach in our solar system: I've read that when the sun enters its red giant stage, it will consume the inner planets. I Beetlegeus is a supergiant, then it seems more likely to me that it would pass jupiter were it in our solar system. However, remember that in the article it says that it would pass the orbit of Mars, not making any claims as to where it would actually reach.

--213.118.81.5 23:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) I am confused about the statement of brightness in the article. It states it is the 13th brightest star in the sky. If one follows the link to the list of brightest stars, it seems that Aldebaran is actually the 13th (as mentioned in the aldebaran article) and Betelgeuse is 10th... so which is it ?

Betelgeuse is a variable star, and so, as a result, its brightness can vary to either brighter than or less bright than Aldebaran, depending on what stage of its cycle it occupies 91.110.144.196 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Names
I have cleaned the section on the origin of the name to a certain extent to make it more readable as an encyclopedic article and I have also removed some alternate names that were basically just different spellings of Betelgeuse.--Kalsermar 20:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How is the name pronounced please ? (not English beetle juice)

I pronounce it "Bé-tell-gawz" due to it's origins from an Arabic phrase.

I have heard several (non-english speakers for the most part) pronounce it "Bay-tell-jzways" 91.110.144.196 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Metric vs. Imperial
While I support the metric first edit on the physical properties of the star I think it is inappropriate in the case of the 100 inch Mount Wilson telescope. No one, especially in the scientific community, will ever talk about the 250cm telescope at Mt. Wilson. It is a historical name which should be kept. I have seen a discussion, but I'm not certain where it was on Wikipedia, about this very topic and it was determined that in the case of historical designations for telescopes inches would be used. In this case at best, put metric in brackets after the imperial designation.--Kalsermar 20:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, most people (in England at least), still use imperial dimensions to describe primary mirror sizes. I think it's just easier, seeing as calling one's telescope a "two hundred and fifty millimetre" is a bit more of a mouthful than "ten inches". I guess that becomes even truer (?) the larger one's instrument becomes. (cough) 91.110.144.196 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
can anyone add the right english pronounciation for the name of this star?


 * How do you pronounce "Betelgeuse"?--Pokipsy76 11:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends. Most English speakers go for "beetle-juice", but German or other Europeans might say "Bay-tel-goy-ze". Graham 15:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pronounced like "Beetlejuice." Really.


 * Really, how does one come up with a correct pronunciation for a word that's origins lie in a mistranslation? Actually, in my experience, there isn't a uniform pronunciation among the astronomers, though personally the beetlejuice one makes me cringe.  If indeed the etymological root is a miscopying of يد الجوزاء into بيت الجوزاء and then spelled as Betelgeuse, I suppose the further corruption into "beetlejuice" isn't such a bad transgression.--孟柏民 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But ask yourself, what does "cringing" have to do with "proper" pronunciations? By the way, the proper term is a mistransliteration --the name wasn't translated, it was simply copied over with Latin letters replacing Arabic letters at a time when few enough Europeans knew Arabic that they didn't always do it right. 216.80.110.88 (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dictionary.com (Random House) offers up the options: [beet-l-jooz, bet-l-jœz]. The first suggests an ending other than 'juice'. The second offers a third syllable with 'œ', which is the sound in the words Fr. feu, Ger. schön. The article also delineates the shady derivation of the name. We could refer to WikiPronunciation ... a much-needed guide to all those mysterious words that we continually mispronounce at the risk of sounding ignorant ... but it hasn't been invented yet. On the other hand, as English speakers, we get to decide. Poll? Twang (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation given in a dictionary is not intended to tell you how you're "supposed to" pronounce it. Modern dictionaries generally just list the more common pronunciations that their researchers have found in the real world. Unfortunately for jargon and scientific words, there are few enough people using the word, drawn from such diverse backgrounds, that there is rarely any consensus on pronunciations. Simple advice (my two cents): if you're in a position where you need to pronounce it, admit that there are lots of ways to say it, and use the one that most people (english-speakers) find familiar, which is probably "beetle juice".216.80.110.88 (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that it is the one pronunciation that is generally accepted to be incorrect within the astronomy community. How to pronounce it does vary, but the leading contenders are probably bay-tel-goyse, bet-el-jooz, and various combinations of the elements therein.  We have no business pandering to popular misconceptions here which are probably bought about in no small part by one particular film.


 * I also disagree with your characterisation of dictionary pronunciation - yes, of course they are subject to variation but usually where there is not clear consensus alternate forms are given. As for this being too jargony, most dictionaries worth their salt employ a panel of experts in specialist areas for just this sort of issue. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, no. That's wrong. This isn't pandering. First, not to state the obvious, and as I am sure you know, you do not speak for the "astronomical community". Second, as someone who has been part of the "astronomical community" as well as the "celestial navigation community" I disagree thoroughly with your opinion. It's just not true from my own decades of experience. But in any case, and this is the critical point, your opinion and my opinion are quite irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. So we need sources in print. There are tens of thousands available via Google Books. Try this: go to "Google Books Advanced Search" and search on "Betelgeuse" beetle juice. You will quickly discover that "beetle juice", as silly as it may seem to serious ears, has been the accepted pronunciation for many people for decades. There have been alternate pronunciations offered over the years, but "beetle juice" is no recent invention. The lingering debate among the pedantic who would say, "you know, it's really pronounced bet-el-goyz" or something along those lines was indeed accelerated into history by "one particular film". But which film did you have in mind: "Beetlejuice" or "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?


 * The majority of people who have cause to use the name Betelgeuse in English pronounce it as "beetle juice". If you don't like that, you can start a petition, launch a web site, found a movement. But you cannot turn reality on its head. That's how it's pronounced.216.80.110.88 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please cite sources. This page isn't a forum for your own outlook on how to say Betelgeuse. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, 216.80..., I am not going to let you invert the argument like that. As you will see from the page history, it is me that has a consistent position in favour of keeping any assertion of pronunciation out.  The burden of proof is with you if you want to make such an assertion.  I could cite many highly respected sources within the community, but all of them can be brushed aside as not speaking for the astronomy community as a whole, just as you choose to ignore dictionaries because they do not suit you.  With these standards of proof in mind, please cite your sources. CrispMuncher (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

216.80.110.88 has a great point. Beetle juice is how the majority of people choose to pronounce the word. Public preference is also indeed the manner in which language evolves and forms, so if people say "Beetle juice", then "Beetle Juice" it is, whether you like it or not! 91.110.144.196 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Effect of supernova neutrinos
I just removed this paragraph from the article:


 * There is a newer, alternative theory that due to a massive emission of neutrino particles in said supernova event, life on Earth could be drastically altered if not exterminated.

This is a pretty major statement that deserves at least a citation, and probably a rewrite of the preceeding paragraph that claims there's a consensus that the supernova would be harmless. Tossed in casually as it was, I think this paragraph only detracted from the article. --Doradus 13:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Supernovas create incredible amounts of neutrinos. Although neutrinos interact extremely weakly with matter, there are so many of them close to a supernova that neutrino bombardment may be lethal. But definitely not at the distance of Betelgeuse.--Jyril 18:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am removing this statement:


 * This will result in 2 x 10. 1000 times less than a lethal dose for a human, though some damage to chromosomes may be done.

First I don't know what 2 x 10 is supposed to be. No units. Second a back of the envelope calculation, using the even perhaps 10x high neutron flux quoted, gives a result of ~10^-11 of an LD. I would like to see calculations supporting 10^-3. Reference: http://www.andrewkaram.com/andy/pdf/HPJ.pdf. WCVanHorne (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

IPA in pronunciation section
"Webster's Collegiate Dictionary suggests both 'bɛtəldʒuːz ("BET-l-jooz") and 'bɛtəldʒjuːz ("BET-l-jeuz")". Can someone with a copy of the dictionary confirm this bizarrity? Because /dʒj/ cannot occur in English. Possibly, for some speakers, /dʒ/ being a palatal consonant is followed by [j] by default, but /dʒj/ is not phonemically distinguished from /dʒ/ in any English dialect I know of. 91.107.175.248 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To-do List
Righto then - towards GA/FA etc. what to do. Sorting out content first I guess....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The name drama as reported above. The Etymology section needs some reorganizing.
 * The fate section I do think is important, but need to keep comments limited to appropriate authors (i.e. astronomers etc.) and works. I've tracked down a scholarly source now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible supernova?
http://unixronin.livejournal.com/763082.html

This may be relevant to this article, any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vestonian (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As the blogger concedes through the above URL, it was unfounded rumor. Nothing to it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the bit from Wheeler's book and tried to summarise and add it. What is wrong with it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the comment cannot tolerate caveats about distance, it doesn't belong. The "427 years" is clearly in the context of a specific distance (presumably 427 light years). If the quote must stand at exactly 427 years without the context of this being a presumed distance from the star, it doesn't belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With the "several centuries" and being a paraphrase rather than a direct quote, my objection ends. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I am reading more as I go, the new Hipparcos paper is interesting as it is now further away again....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fate section
Do we need to modify the "Fate" section in Betelgeuse? A number of people have taken the quote from Townes in the last paragraph about Betelgeuse's "shrinking" as indicative of a core collapse starting - in spite of the fact that Townes never says anything of the sort, and the fact that a core collapse takes place in a fraction of a second (see http://www.psc.edu/science/Burrows/burrows.html for some pictorial details on the milliseconds surrounding a core collapse).

I'd suggest we either move the paragraph up to the previous section (characteristics), or add caveats describing how the "red hot vacuum" of a red giant's photosphere varies considerably as stellar winds expel the outer layers. While not directly relevant (Betelgeuse is too massive to leave a visible planetary nebula), the article on planetary nebula describes the process well. Perhaps both approaches might serve. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved to observation section and placed in chronological sequence. Agree it gave a false impression where it was. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Going FA. Analysis of Useful Articles
Okay - Web of Science gives these 139 articles - we can go through and see which ones have been looked at already: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did move the table out into a sub-talkpage: Talk:Betelgeuse/WebOfScience (to keep talk page size within reasonable limits) --Kslotte (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Article table structure
Hi Casliber. I finally had a chance to look through this list in earnest. To really do it justice, I decided to incorporate the whole list in a sortable table. My thought was 1) it's always helpful to organize things and 2) if there are other editors who want to ACTIVELY participate in taking the Betelgeuse article to FA status, we can divide up the task of reading these articles and see whether each article has relevant information or not.

I have noticed that there are many articles that are not showing up in this list &mdash; articles that I've found using other databases or search engines. I will add these articles in a separate table at a later date.

For this table to be useful, I propose the following:


 * Categories. Let's limit the "Category" section to only 5 specific groups to make this table functional, as follows:
 * 1) Unread. Nobody has so far read the article.
 * 2) Relevant. Somebody has read the article (or at least the Abstract) and deems the information RELEVANT. If it is deemed relevant, a note should be left in the remarks section as to why it's relevant.
 * 3) Irrelevant. Somebody read the article (or at least the Abstract) and deems the information IRRELEVANT. The term "Irrelevant" can mean it's 1) off topic, 2) too technical, 3) beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article, etc.
 * 4) To include. Only after an article has been deemed Relevant, can we determine how to include it. Anyone who changes the category should point out in what Section/Sub-section of the Betelgeuse article this should be included.
 * 5) Already Included. The article is already referenced in the article. If it is included, the editor should verify that a reference already exists in the References section of Betelgeuse.


 * Remarks. This section is a mini-talk page for each article. Its purpose is to answer 5 questions:
 * 1) How?  How the article would be relevant to Betelgeuse.
 * 2) Where? In what section of Betelgeuse this article would relate to.
 * 3) Link?  Is there a link to the Abstract?  Is there a PDF link too? If so include.
 * 4) Who & When?  A user time stamp, so we know who thinks what.

I hope this is useful. At least it will help me get my head around all this information. Sadalsuud (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I decided to include 2 new fields in the table: Date and Author. I noticed while classifying the different articles that I was wanting to have the ability to sort by either "Date" or "Author".  The Date sort gives you the ability to see articles in sequence. That way you can see the evolving scientific inquiry that is occurring for Betelgeuse as a whole.  The Author sort gives you the ability to see the evolving inquiry of certain researchers, and so is useful in the actual writing of an article. Sadalsuud (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I decided to scrap the idea of two separate tables. Makes a lot more sense to consolidate. So...
 * Records <=139 are sourced from Web of Science
 * Records >=140 are sourced from ADS. Sadalsuud (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Web of Science & ADS Tables
The table is found at Talk:Betelgeuse/WebOfScience

Deleting "Further reading" section?
As this article evolves to FA status, it's been proposed that the "Further Reading" section be deleted. How does everyone feel about this?

There are a number of reasons for this proposal:


 * 1) The section is composed primarily of scientific articles available through ADS or other websites. Singling out 1 or even a dozen papers in the further reading section when there are possibly 1,000 relevant papers on Betelgeuse sort of goes against NPOV;
 * 2) With inline referencing now available, the better strategy is to include a "summary" sentence or two in the main article and then include the scientific paper as an inline reference. That way, those specifically interested in the topic can pursue further research;
 * 3) With the current design of inline references, it's now possible to access the scientific article with two clicks&mdash;one click on the ref number, another on the main link, and you have the article right on your screen.

Because of the ability to reference articles in this way, I recently deleted another citation in this section, "When did it change to red?"&mdash; an article that appeared in the Sunday supplement of the Hindu in 1982. Looking for it online, I couldn't find it anywhere and really had to wonder about its usefulness, especially in the context of all the other articles being referenced. Certain contributors objected, hence the reason for this post. Do people feel that a "Further reading" section is really warranted here, or is it superfluous?--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I generally find these sections superfluous. If a source is good enough to mention in a "further reading" type section, then surely it should be a reference somewhere in the article - I find it odd if one couldn't be at all. Hence I often just remove. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In that particular case, the availability of the article was essentially nil. It's possible the only source for the article is the microfiche archives of the publisher. Who else is likely to retain sunday supplements for three decades? The usefulness of "further reading" is limited to materials which are easily obtained (not necessarily on-line, an in-print book could qualify) and provide greater depth than the Wikipedia article can provide. For the purposes of this article, it goes into enough depth with enough references that further reading materials aren't particularly useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for everyone's feedback. All the articles that were listed in the Further reading section have now been included in the body of the article as proposed and the section deleted.  --Sadalsuud (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have responded to this sooner but somehow I missed it. As could be implied by my editing at around the time this discussion opened, I disagree:  Deleting further reading suggestions simply because they don't fit in with a preconceived notion of what the "final" article should look like is untenable.  Sources have been deleted without even bothering to check what they actually say and on the most whimsical of grounds.  I chose to examine just one of those deleted references.  I only received a copy of the article in question today which is why I'm a bit slow responding.  It contains a fundamentally different perspective.  Sure, it contains a lot of basic scientific parameters available elsewhere in more up-to-date form.  However, the emphemeral nature itself of a newspaper article gives a differnt persepctive in and of itself: it is a snapshot of understanding at the time it was written.  It also has historical and cultural background that furthers the understanding of the subject in the round rather than the fairly narrow area this article covers: it still very much on topic though and surely worth mentioning.  Instead it was obliterated for purely stylistic reasons.  Crispmuncher (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with a "Further reading" section in concept. As you say, it can broaden the overall appeal of the article. My major concern was NPOV.  I couldn't see why certain articles were being included while hundreds of other important articles were being left out.  I would be interested in knowing what the "one" article was that you refer to.  Your point is that the content of that article was not adequately addressed in the Betelgeuse article itself.  That's a fair comment.  If so, let's discuss that issue specifically and include it if warranted.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Major surgery on Observational history section?
We're getting close to submitting this article for GA review. The one remaining task will be to edit the Observational history section, a task which up until now has been intentionally avoided. As frequent contributors to this article will recall, this section up until July 2010 was called Observation and was the main section of the article&mdash;hence the primary focus of early contributions. As new sections have been added, redundancies have emerged, which in effect reduce the quality of the article. Also, as this section has morphed into a history section, there are now many "chucks of time" that are missing, making the section sub-standard. Consequently, the intent will be to re-craft the section so that it provides a broader historical overview, thus giving the reader a useful context on how all the pieces of the Betelgeuse puzzle fit together. Any thoughts/concerns/insights on how to accomplish this are most welcome. We will endeavor to preserve as much of the earlier content as possible, keeping in mind that this section now needs to play a new role. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on the sources really and what is possible to be added. Sounds like you have an idea, so just get stuck into it and we can follow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Luminosity
180.000 times the sun? This cannot be accurate, and may have been based on a earlier figure for the distance. Asgrrr (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The truth is that we don't really know what the star's luminosity is since there are many variables involved in such calculations and the variables are still being debated. The luminosity estimate of 180,000 suns is based on a photospheric radius equal to the Jovian orbit (5.5 AU) and a distance estimate of 197±45 pc. Because both these variables are the subject of current debate, anyone researching Betelgeuse is typically bewildered with one article after another proposing a different luminosity figure.  I myself was originally mystified by that, until I started playing around with the numbers.  Consequently, to clarify the confusion, the approach this article takes is to actually explain the numbers&mdash;that way providing a solid basis for any and all estimates "out there".


 * Since the two main components to the calculation are 1) distance and 2) angular diameter, the Visibility section goes into significant detail on each&mdash;hence 1) Parallax and 2) Angular size, the latter having a robust note section as well. For a detailed understanding of the luminosity calculations, see Note 4.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty. However, I think the information provided should at the very least be consistent, even if inaccurate. If a particular figure for distance is given, luminosity should correspond to that figure. Asgrrr (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the formula Lbolometric = 4&pi;&sigma;Teff4R2 is used to derive luminosity in some other articles, I think it should be avoided in the case of Betelgeuse. The reason is that, as explained in the article, measurements of the radius (R) of Betelgeuse depend on the wavelength you choose to measure it at.  This also influences the determination of the effective temperature, Teff.  If the assumptions made in determining R do not match those made in determining Teff, the formula will not give a correct value for the luminosity.
 * If no more direct reference is found, Lbolometric can be computed directly from estimates of the total radiant flux of Betelgeuse, together with a value for its distance. Dyck et al. 1996 (Table 1, ) gives a total flux of F = 1.15 &times; 10&minus;11 W/cm2.  Together with a parallax of 5.07 &plusmn; 1.10 milliarcseconds, this gives a luminosity of 4&pi;F d2, which is (5.4$$) &times; 1031 watts, or, using L☉,bolometric = 3.83 &times; 1033 erg/s (p. 8, ISBN 0691084459), a total bolometric luminosity for Betelgeuse of
 * 140,000 (error bar, 90,000 to 230,000) L☉.
 * As you can see, the luminosity is still very uncertain, owing to the uncertainty in the distance. Spacepotato (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. The fundamental challenge, however, will be consistency.  The approach taken in this article was to lay a foundation for an "average" angular diameter (i.e. 5.5 AU, the Jovian orbit) and an "average" distance (i.e. Harper 2008, 197±45 pc) and on the basis of those conclusions, calculate a luminosity figure.  Most studies from 2000 have been quoting an "average temperature" of 3,500 - 3,600 K, a variation that skews the results by about 10%.  So, no matter what approach is taken, we must start with a set of assumptions, which because of the star's variability, have been observed to change.  Also the Luminosity and Radiant flux articles have not advanced beyond Start-Class, making it difficult for readers to follow any argument that is presented herein.  I'm happy with the 140,000 L☉, as long as we all understand that, being derived from another set of variables, will potentially introduce certain inconsistencies into the article.  --Sadalsuud (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Average density
This figure is way out. If the volume is 1.6e9 solar volumes, and the mass is about 20 solar masses then the average density is around 1e-8 that of the sun not 1e-23. (Which is also not a sextillionth). Anyway would it not be better to use referenced value for the density of the envelope, which I expect would be a lot less than the average density anyway? Maybe 1e-23 *is* the density of the envelope, but it is not the average density of the star, as stated. Dgwsoft (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the error. The article has been updated accordingly.  As far as any estimated density of circumstellar matter goes, that would be interesting though I've not seen any published information so far.--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC overview
Okay - I'll ask an editor or three to review it and see any outstanding issues....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds great! At this point, I'm at the edge of my own envelope.  Let me know what the next step is.--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked an editor Sasata (who is unfamiliar with the subject matter_ to take a look to see if there is any jargon we can make plainer or other things we may have missed. He'll post some notes soonish. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok let's start! I'll read a section or two each day and add comments as I go along. Sasata (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrific! Really appreciate the input.  I'll try to track with you as best I can, given current time constraints.  I'll add section headings as we go along for easier reference.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is great Sasata. I will try to help when I can but still busy :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)  ...Back to Moving target

I've noticed when responding to your initial observations, some issues can be corrected immediately while others require more research. In order to facilitate the identification of "remaining issues", I will be using red highlighting. When the issue is resolved, the highlighting can be removed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

‡ A note of explanation for the "Moving Target" heading. It's simply an interim solution to save time with editing. I contemplated putting in all the article sub-headings for easy management, but that is unwieldy. As each observation is addressed, the "Moving Target" heading moves down the list. I think I'll go with this rather odd solution for now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

 * there's a mix of British and American English (eg., color vs. metre & neighbour)
 * I'm sort of stumped here. As a Canadian living half-way between British and American cultures it seems, I see this all the time.  In fact, I once remember being in London; I asked a receptionist a simple question, then added "Pardon me, I don't quite understand your accent", to which came the abrupt reply "What accent?  You're the one with the accent!!!" (Yuk, Yuk!).  It certainly taught me a lesson.  So my preference would be to go with the British spelling, but I did a global search on the word "diameter (diametre)" and there are 74 instances of it.  Do we change each one?--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup :) If you don't do it here, someone will ask you to at the FAC, as the MOS demands consistency in spelling. Sasata (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best approach will be to leave this issue for last. At that point, I can import the whole article into a word-processor and perform a global edit.  Otherwise, I suspect this task might not be dealt with adequately.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "…wholly engulfing Mercury, Venus, the Earth and Mars." why not put them in order?
 * Not sure I understand you here. That's the order of those four planets, extending from the Sun. Please clarify.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You were warned about my knowledge of astronomy :) Sasata (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * link light year, runaway star, O and B stars, stellar evolution
 * all blue links inserted. Note.  I could have blue linked OB star but the article is a stub.  I've found Stellar classification the best place to blue link to as it gives the reader a quick yet sufficiently detailed overview of the subject.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "It was the first star after the Sun to have its angular diameter measured in 1920 with many measurements since;" the way this is written sounds like the Sun and other stars had this measurement performed in 1920
 * This sentence was corrected and expanded for greater clarity.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * lead tells us twice it's a red supergiant
 * Deleted second usage. It seems like the best placement is at the very beginning of the lead, as the concept of "supergiant" is so central to the whole article.  I also deleted reference to Hertzsprung Russel diagram.  That seemed a little too technical for the lead.  Also the same information can be found in the Properties section.  So we are OK here.  I also included the timing of the supernova.  That should be an eye-grabber, as it answers a central question many are asking on the internet.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * lead for an article this size could probably be a paragraph longer. Try to lengthen it by using more words to explain the blue-linked jargon, rather than putting more information in there :) Try to aim for making the lead understandable by a "bright grade 12 student" without having to click on any bluelinks. I'll revisit the lead after I've read the rest.
 * Did my best to lengthen the lead and make it more understandable. A mental picture of a star "constantly changing shape" is simple, yet effective in understanding some of the more technical points. I did however add a new sentence on "stellar companions".  A major section is dedicated to "Star system", but there was no reference to it in the lead.  Also, I tried to point out a salient fact which will hopefully grab the reader's attention.  Hope it all works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer all or nothing citations in the lead. Are the things currently cited not cited later on? If so, why not leave them out?
 * All citations in lead have now been moved/deleted.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Organizational history section

 * "…the classical astronomer Ptolemy described its color as "ὑπόκιρρος", an unusual term which was later described by a translator of Ulugh Beg's Zij-i Sultani as rubedinem, Latin for "ruddiness"." why is it unusual? Does the source clarify this?
 * Deleted "unusual"--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with 'rubedinem': it is almost certainly an accusative form, and the article needs the nominative. 'Rubedinis' is probably correct. Anyone have the book? Rothorpe (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Formerly, It has been thought that red colored stars are "unusual" by astronomers. (e.g. Ptolemy, Al Sufi, Flammarion, and Norton) Ptolemy gave those "ὑπόκιρρος". [Allen (1963) pp. 102 (for α Boo, Arcturus), 223 (for β Gem, Pollux), 311 (for this star), 552 (Greek Index).]
 * Allen said that:
 * The 1515 Almagest followed Ulug Beg's Tables, and these followed Ptolemy, who characterized the color of α as ὑπόκιρρος, which Ulug Beg's translator turned into  rubidinem rubedinem , "ruddiness," and Almagest into the not very different word of the quotation, expressing ideas of war and carnage, astrology's attributes of red stars.
 * on page 331 in his Star Names.
 * Here, Allen represented it as accusative form.
 * Thomas Hyde, a translator of Ulugh Beg's Zij described Ulug Beg's 2nd of Orion (＝ α Ori) as Stella lucida in humero dextro, quæ ad rubedinem vergit. [Hyde (1665) p. 112.]
 * Hyde T., (1665) "Ulugh Beighi Tabulæ Stellarum Fixarum," Tabulæ Long. ac. Lat. Stellarum Fixarum, ex Observatione Ulugh Beighi,..., Oxoni.
 * [Further reading] Kunitzsch, P., (1974) Der Almagest, Otto Harrassowitz, the term "ὑπόκιρρος" given for 6 stars, #71 (Arcturus), #279 (Aldebaran), #300 (Pollux), #386 (Antares), #491 (this star), and #532 (Sirius).--Bay Flam (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Maybe we can work it in as a quote or something (which helps place the odd accusative in context). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed to nominative & footnoted the quote - thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks（お役に立ててなによりです）.--Bay Flam (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "…like the planet Mars which derives its name" "which" typically follows a comma, so should replace with "that"
 * Done--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * don't think the link to war is necessary; should spectral analysis perhaps be linked?
 * "War" delinked. "Spectral analysis" linked to Spectroscopy--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * could you gloss a definition of Class III stars, I don't get an answer when I hover over the link
 * inserted "(orange to red)", the intent being to keep the sentence simple.--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The variation in Betelgeuse's brightness was first described in 1836 by Sir John Herschel, when he published his observations in Outlines of Astronomy; he noted an increase in activity from 1836–1840, followed by a subsequent reduction." does "activity" = "brightness"? should be clarified or made explicit, as following two sentence are slightly unclear
 * will need to research --Sadalsuud (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "This variability in brightness may explain why Johann Bayer designated the star alpha" when did he do so?
 * Inserted date of publication--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * link AU
 * Done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "…a central theme which would be the focus of scientific inquiry for a whole century." If these measurements started in 1920, and it's 2010 now, then it can't have been a whole century
 * Good point. This inquiry may continue for quite some time, though the Gaia mission in 2012 may very well resolve it.  Inserted the word "almost".--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Beginning with this first measurement at visible wavelengths" clarify "first measurement of … (angular diameter?)"
 * Inserted and blue linked the phrase "angular measurement" so as to avoid the repetitious use of "angular diameter". Hope this works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "researchers have conducted multiple experiments since" hmmm, wondering about terminology: are these "experiments" (i.e., testing hypotheses) or just measurements?
 * Replaced "experiments" with "investigations". Does that work?--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The 1950s and '60s saw several important developments," developments in what?
 * Inserted "scientific"--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * link solar granule, sunspot; convection should be linked here rather than the next paragraph
 * Done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * unlink seventies
 * Hmmmm! I've got all the other decades linked. Should I unlink all of them?  What I propose is the same formating, i.e. 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, etc....  What do you think?--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, unlink them all, they aren't necessary links that help the reader understand the material in this article. Sasata (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "But it wasn't" avoid contractions in formal writing
 * Done--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "These were the first optical and infrared images of a stellar disk other than the Sun" Are the italics intended here? And I'm not sure what a stellar disk is.
 * Good question! 1)The italics are intended, though perhaps not needed.  It's there to emphasize the point that Betelgeuse is the first star ever to have an image captured of a "disk" rather a "point of light", which is what we see with most stars.  2) The term "stellar disk" refers to the photosphere, hence the blue link, which is understood to the be the "surface of the star".  What is tricky is that there is no "surface", the same way we think of "surface of the earth" (the transition from solid land/liquid ocean to gas/air).  What the term stellar disk tries to emphasize is the "roundness" of the star.  It's a term often used in scientific journals.  I hope the blue link is sufficient.  What do you think?--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "taken with the GHRS" should spell out acronyms on first usage, and don't make acronyms if they aren't used later
 * Done--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did the same for Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI), as it will appear later in the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * pipe link celestial north to celestial pole?
 * Done--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * unlink first decade
 * Done--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "star's complex circumstellar environment being the most central." see
 * Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. That article was helpful.  As a result, you will see a sentence that has been largely restructured.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "estimate of 55.2 ± 0.5 milliarcseconds" here the abbreviation mas should be put in parentheses, as it is used later
 * abbreviation added Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "estimated distance of 131 parsecs" parsec needs link here, not later
 * Done.


 * "15 consecutive years of stellar contraction". Again, are the italics for emphasis?
 * de-italicised. Let the wierdness of the fact speak for itself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "This finding of a diminishing radius coupled with a relatively constant flux puts into question some of the fundamental theories of stellar structure." Source?
 * will need to research --Sadalsuud (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "ground based" needs hyphen
 * Done- Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "distances approximating 30AU" shouldn't there be a space between the number and the unit?
 * yep. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Astronomers have identified at least 6 different shells surrounding this magnificent star." magnificent? and in the next sentence, "As the century unfolds, the mystery of mass loss in the late stages of a star's evolution will hopefully be solved, revealing those factors which precipitate the dramatic deaths of these stellar giants." use of the words 'hopefully' and 'dramatic' seem a bit out of place for encyclopaedic writing.
 * reworded both sentences Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Visibility section

 * "Betelgeuse is an easy star to spot in the night sky" -> "Betelgeuse is easy to spot in the night sky"
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * …with only a few obscure research stations in Antarctica south of 82 degrees unable to see it." is it just the research stations that can't see it, or it it not visible in the area where the research stations are located?
 * It is the far southern latitude that is the reason it can't be seen. I have reworded to emphasise this slightly - do you think less ambiguous now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Sydney—Down Under" why use a colloquialism rather than just saying Australia?
 * removed entirely, all three cities are notable enough to not need countries named Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Because Betelgeuse is a variable star whose brightness ranges" -> "Because Betelgeuse is a star of variable brightness ranging"
 * "variable star" is a specific adjective-noun combination referring to what it is. I don't think the latter scans well if I place the "variable" before "star" in it (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "…when it will surpass Procyon in brightness to become the eighth brightest star." bright is implied already, and the word already used twice in the sentence
 * trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "by 0.03 to 0.3 magnitudes" -> "by magnitudes of 0.03 to 0.3"
 * that one doesn't work so well - "magnitude" has a very specific unitary connotation in star brightness - see Magnitude (astronomy) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "it may also be possible for Betelgeuse" -> "it is also possible"
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "At its faintest, it will actually fall behind Deneb"
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "for the 20th position in the sky ."
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * link emission
 * Linked both "emission" and "absorption". I pipe linked to Spectral line instead of the main articles as this "intro" article gives the simplest explanation.  The main articles are too esoteric for a first time read.  Also, the Spectral line article has great graphics contrasting the two, so I bluelinked those graphics to their respective main article if someone wants to learn more.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "apparently depending on radial velocity" -> "depending apparently on radial velocity"
 * Done--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * link effective temperature
 * Done--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * the unit abbreviation pc is used for parsecs, but the abbreviation hasn't been defined previously. Same with ly.
 * Done--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "… with estimated distances as high as 900 light years being proposed." noun +ing :)
 * cleaned up--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "there were two respected publications with up-to-date parallax data on Betelgeuse." who says they were respected?
 * I've decided to leave "as is". The word "respected" in this context means "generally understood in the astronomical community to come from recognized sources".  To explain that would be verbose.  To delete the word altogether creates other problems like "Maybe there were a dozen published values", which once again overtaxes this section.  You will also notice that in the two sentences that follow, there are references for each published value, in essence, validating that they are "respected" publications.  So I think we're OK here.  If you strongly disagree, I'm all ears.  Maybe there's something I don't see here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "π = 9.8 ± 4.7 milliarcseconds" milliarcsecond has been abbreviated & linked previously.
 * reduced to mas. Kept bluelink.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * what was the difference in the method used to obtain Yales' parallax versus the HIC "trigonometric" parallax?
 * will need to research --Sadalsuud (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "fueled much debate—not only in terms of the star's distance, but also in terms of its many other implications." what implications? Is this referring to the (mis)calculation of other stellar parameters?
 * Yes. I edited sentence to say: "but also its impact on other stellar parameters."--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "long awaited" needs hyphen
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Where a breakthrough in this debate appears to have come is with the advances in radio astronomy." awkward sentence construction
 * Thanks for the insight. As a result, this sentence is rewritten completely... "Recent advances in radio astronomy appear to have prevailed in this debate."--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "New high spatial resolution, multiwavelength, NRAO Very Large Array (VLA) radio positions of Betelgeuse" this seems a bit awkward too
 * Moved a few words around. Think it works better.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "197 +/- 45 pc or 643 +/- 146 ly." would look neater if the ± symbol were used
 * Done--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The next computational breakthrough will likely come" -> specify "The next computational breakthrough (for parallax calculation) will likely come"
 * I'd like to keep the language condensed so it flows easily. So I pipe linked computational.  From my perspective, it's an elegant solution, but does it conform with MoS?--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "measured to the extraordinary accuracy of 0.001%."
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Each of you might dispute this, but I inserted the word "unprecedented". The word "extraordinary" doesn't really say anything.  Also an accuracy of 0.001% doesn't really say anything either... at least to the average reader.  But the word "unprecedented" does say something... namely... we've never had measurements this precise before.  I think this word enhances the paragraph.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * link Galactic centre
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * what does classification SRC mean?
 * It is a subclassification - see Semiregular variable star subtypes. Didn't think two links to same short page in quick succession was helpful (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * supergiant and photosphere have been previously linked
 * delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "short term" needs hyphen
 * done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * it seems there are several instances of things being linked in this section that have already been linked previously, probably needs to check each link carefully to avoid overlinking
 * I've found a few already. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * does Schwartschild actually call them "monster granules"? Maybe put in quotes if so, or use a different adjective to denote large size.
 * will need to research--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Like most scientific papers, Schwarzschild's tone throughout the 1975 document is cautious, especially since it was the first paper of its kind to advance the theory. For instance: "The dominant convective elements of a red giant or supergiant are so large that only a small number of them occupy the surface."  In more recent papers published by Kervella and Ohnaka, they speak of convection cells with their resultant gas bubbles being as large as the star itself.  Such size dwarfs the imagination... a quadrillion Earths could fit inside such a cell.  Consequently, my perception is that the phrase "monster granules" is an effective metaphor, particularly for the average reader, to describe their enormity.  Schwarzschild's use of the word "dominant" could be used but would need further explanation, making the section unwieldy. Other words like "gigantic", "enormous", "huge", are possible replacements, but don't have the same impact.  I'll defer to others on this issue.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "As noted earlier, Betelgeuse became the first star to have its diameter measured on December 13, 1920" Same problem as last time, wording makes it sound like there were other stars measured on that day
 * Drastically simplified sentence omitting information contained in Organizational history.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "the team concluded the star's size was roughly 17% larger" larger than what? Previous estimates?
 * This whole paragraph has a problem. What has not been clarified so far is the concept of "uniform disk" versus "limb-darkened disk".  So to answer the question "larger than what?", the answer is larger than the "uniform disk".  Changing a few words in the sentence, is only a partial solution as the distinction between the two measurements needs to be made first.  The way I've been handling the distinction so far is "explain as you go", which, given your question, points to the fact that it's not working effectively. The best solution, I believe, will be to improve other articles and provide blue links The solution presented herein is only temporary.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The temporary solution has been to introduce the phrase "uniform disk", and then follow up with "stellar disk" in the next sentence. I think the concept is now clear, although "uniform disk" really needs a blue link.  It should not however have its own article.  In August, I had a dialog going with Casliber where I said that after Betelgeuse, I would focus on the Angular diameter article.  At the time it was sub-standard, still is, and yet it's so pivotal to understanding one of the most important sections of the Betelgeuse article, Angular anomalies.  Once Betelgeuse is more or less complete, I intend to do a major rewrite of the Angular diameter article, including therein a section on "Uniform disk". With that done, the phrase "uniform disk" can then be pipe linked and the concept explained in full.  This may take a few weeks before I can finally get to it. Hope the above solution is satisfactory for now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Since then, there have been other studies conducted with angles ranging" wording needs a tweak, the studies weren't conducted with angles
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "If we combine" should rephrase to remove "we"(sounds more like a textbook than an encyc)
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "That's a huge margin, hence a prime factor behind this astronomical enigma." remove contraction, and reword "hence" used in close proximity in the previous sentence. Honestly, the whole sentence sounds a bit inelegant
 * tried 'The huge margin is a key issue of this astronomical enigma.' - what you reckon Sadalsuud? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I'm learning from Sasata's review, this sentence is not "encyclopedic writing". I was just trying to emphasize a point made earlier in the article, but it's really superfluous.  Probably best to remove the sentence altogether.--Sadalsuud (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you might be right on the superfluousness of that sentence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Jupiter 5.5 AU—consequently a photosphere which," consequently what a photosphere (seems like there's a word missing)? Also, is there is source associated with this sentence and the previous one?
 * It's certainly a complex sentence; I'll try to simplify it. The reference is actually the previous Note 1. I can move it or provide a new ref.  Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * About the radio image, I'm not sure what "radio image" image, is it taken using radiowaves? What does the 7 mm refer to? Suggest cropping out the credits at the bottom (image credits will be displayed in text on the image page)
 * Will work on this over the weekend.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "He proposed the observation of stars through two apertures" can we take out the passive voice and change to "He proposed observing stars through two apertures"?
 * "binary stars, quasars, asteroids and galactic nuclei." these should be linked if they haven't been already
 * all four done (first instances for all) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "while Space observatories" shouldn't be capitalized, no?
 * Done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "have yet produced other significant breakthroughs."
 * removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "with a uniform disk of 54.7 ± 0.3 mas," mas already linked previously
 * delinked--Sadalsuud (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "the photosphere's radius could actually be as small as 4.2 AU or as large as 6.9 AU." paragraphs ending in uncited sentences are a red flag for FAC reviewers
 * added simple ref--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Crossing the Atlantic" -> "Across the Atlantic"
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "43:33 ± 0:04 mas" are those supposed to be colons in there?
 * Replaced with periods.--Sadalsuud (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "It's a compelling argument" contraction; does the source actually call it compelling?
 * Once again, this is probably not "encyclopedic writing" since it reads like "We the Wikipedia community" are saying it's compelling. I'll rephrase it.--Sadalsuud (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "impressively tight error factors" reword "impressively tight"
 * changed to "minimal"--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Of pivotal importance", "this seminal paper" seems a bit like it's emphasizing too much what you think the reader should believe is important, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
 * As we go through this process I'm getting more and more a sense of what you mean by "encyclopedic writing". I struggled with this sentence a bit, but decided to keep its basic flow intact while toning it down.  I also decided to expand the italics to emphasize a "15 year study at one wavelength".  I read the Manual of Style section on italics, and it seems to give editors a lot of discretion as to what to emphasize and not.  A 15 year study at one wavelength is probably one of the most important points to get from this article, as it has an impact on virtually every section of the document.  It may well be that Perrin's photospheric estimate of 43.33 mas (4.25 AU) will win out in the end, but not until this issue of time and the "perceived" expansion and contraction of the star is adequately dealt with.  This will take time, I suspect&mdash;hence the italics.  Does this kind of argument justify the use of italics or no?--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "rather asymmetric (i.e. a potato)" I think if the reader has made it this far, they know what asymmetric means :)
 * removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * there's some more italic usage in this section that doesn't seem necessary (imo)

Properties section

 * first two paragraphs lacking citations
 * 6 refs entered--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * get rid of the "we" in the second paragraph, and the contraction ("we simply don't")
 * done--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * solar mass and solar luminosity are linked multiple times in this section; they should be written out in full on the first occurrence (solar masses is currently written in full in the 3rd paragraph)
 * done--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "One model reports a mass at the lower end of the spectrum" probably best not to use the word "spectrum" here as a synonym for range, as it has a precise meaning used previously and may be confusing to some
 * done--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * should "main sequence" be hyphenated (as in the image caption) or not (as in the article text later)?
 * Weird! The Wikipedia featured article heading is non-hyphenated, although there is an instance in the lead where the term is hyphenated. I looked up a NASA website and their use of hte phrase is non-hyphenated.  So I think we'll go with that.  I've made changes accordingly and checked the rest of the document for conformity.--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 4th paragraph has many interesting facts but no citation
 * citations added--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "anywhere from 25 to as long as 32 years"
 * done--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "In 2002 astronomers using advanced computer models" comma after 2002; "advanced computer models" is vague->does this mean high-speed, powerful hardware, or does it mean complex mathematical formulas modelled with computer software?
 * I reread the referenced article and noticed use of the word "simulation" instead of "model". So I changed the phrase to "sophisticated computer simulations".  I don't know if such simulations are done on supercomputers or not, though I suspect its a combination of sophisticated hardware and software.  I hope the updated prose works better--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The kinematics of Betelgeuse are intriguing yet not easily explained" link kinematics; I agree they are intriguing, but the article doesn't need to tell me that.
 * done--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The age of a Type M supergiant" I don't think Type M has been defined yet
 * You're right! I decided to define it right at the beginning of the Properties section, when addressing its stellar classification.  That was the most logical place for it.  Also  changed the terminology from "Type M" to "Class M", given that's how the blue link reads. Makes it easier for first time readers.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "20 times solar" is this a standard was to express this?
 * The language is quite common in astronomical circles. So as to avoid redundancy, it is sometimes used.  However, given that M☉ is already a defined term, I decided to go with that.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "a projection back in time would take Betelgeuse around 290 parsecs farther from the galactic plane where there is no star formation region—an implausible scenario" sounds very cool, but I'm not quite sure what it means, or why it would be implausible… is there a perhaps a link for galactic plane or star formation region?
 * Ya, actually Star formation is a main article and the first sentence in the lead points out that stars need a molecular cloud region to form. I also linked the word "region" to the Molecular cloud article for further support as well as a link to the galactic plane article, although that one doesn't shed any light on star formation.  So I think the blue links will be sufficient for the average reader.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Although the space motion for the 25 Ori group has yet to be measured" 25 Ori?
 * I've included a reference to 25 Orionis group in the Orion OB1 Association article and will create the 25 Orionis article shortly, identifying the relationship between the association and the star.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I think we are covered here.  I created a new page 25 Orionis.  I think it's probably C status.  With a little more work, I should be able to get it up to B status.  So it's an effective blue link.  The 25 Ori subgroup however is a little more problematic.  The Orion OB1 Association is substandard and will need a lot more work.  I noticed that Harper had referenced a 2007 article from Briceňo, so that's also included in the Orion OB1 Association article.  I've not included the ref in the Betelgeuse article, as the more relevant ref is the Harper one.  If someone wants to learn about the 25 Orionis group, at least the Orion OB1 Association article has an effective reference to go to.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * link Orion Nebula
 * Actually need to link to Orion Nebula Cluster in this case, a slightly different thing. I am thinking about a stub or where the best place to link it might be. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started upgrading both the Orion OB1 Association and Orion Nebula articles to reflect terminology found in the Harper reference. I believe that 1) Orion Nebula, 2) Orion Nebula Cluster and 3) Orion OB1d are very closely aligned and will attempt to identify their distinguishing characteristics, if any.  Once I've had a chance to research, I will get back with some updated suggestions.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've included a map of the various subassociations for Orion OB1 from the Italian Wikipedia. I think it's useful here to sort out what's going on in this section.  Cryptic pathways states that Orion's Belt in Orion OB1a, which is not entirely consistent with the map.  So this will need to be investigated. There will need to be more research done and probably an upgrade of the Orion OB1 Association and Orion nebula articles as well.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I performed the first significant upgrade of Orion OB1 Association. See Talk:Orion OB1 Association.  Orion OB1a and Orion OB1b got mixed up.  As a result, I had to clean up Cryptic Pathways a bit, given its statement that OB1a included Orion's belt.  The lead section is OK, however, as it refers to OB1 as a whole not just OB1a.  I will continue working on the Orion OB1 Association article so as to address some of the issues identified above.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * spell out VLBA
 * done--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "masses greater than 10 solar" is this also standard? last time it was n times solar
 * I'm not sure. I'd have to defer to an astrophysicist on the subject.  The terminology comes from the Harper article.  What I do know is that stars with masses greater than 9 solar are expected to explode as supernovas.--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * what does the subsection title "cryptic pathways" mean? It's not mentioned in the text. Similarly, I'm unclear why the Ethereal is "cubed" in the next subsection header.
 * Both headers come from an inquiry begun months ago at Talk:Pleione (star) with the drafting of the Pleione article. It was right at the time that Casliber had welcomed me to Wikipedia and I was just getting oriented.  At the time, I postulated a design for star articles where "major headings" would be highly structured&mdash;i.e. Visibility, Properties etc.&mdash;and "sub headings" more evocative, giving each article a distinctive "feel" and, in conformity with MoS, "grab people's attention".
 * In this context, then, "pathways" is a metaphor for "kinematics". "Ethereal cubed" is a kind of mathematical poetry, I suppose, meaning Ethereal3, (Ethereal × Ethereal × Ethereal... hence extremely ethereal), while "cubed" typically signifies 3 dimensions.  I don't know if this constitutes "encyclopedic writing", so I'll defer to your judgment in this regards.  I have however gotten some pretty favorable reviews from a few scientists I know as they see this style adding life to what can often be a "dry" scientific subject.  I suppose what I've been exploring is a comment made by Casliber that Wikipedia articles need to find a balance between "not too spartan and not too flowery".  Given the dryness of scientific articles generally, if I'm going to err in any direction, I'd prefer to err on the "flowery" side.
 * Let me know your thoughts. We could change "Cryptic pathways" to "Cryptic kinematics", but that would tend to emphasize a word that is sometimes overused in star articles.  We could replace "Ethereal cubed" with "Ethereal3" or "Hot air Vacuum"&mdash;although the latter, in my opinion, is probably tired and worn out, a phrase that was introduced in the 1960s.  To address your concerns, I've expanded each section to clarify the nomenclature.  Hope that works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "That's" -> That is
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "orbiting a Sun the size of a mango." why use an asymmetric fruit like a mango?
 * Back in July, the Betelgeuse article used a beach ball inside a football stadium as the analogy. It was a powerful visual image, I thought, but there was no rigor behind it.  Where were the calculations to substantiate such a claim?  At that point, I decided to find a stadium on the internet where the "bowl volume" could be easily identified, and from there perform the calculations.  Also I was hoping to find a picture with an interior view so the reader could "experience" the relative size of Betelgeuse, and that's why Wembley Stadium was chosen.  It had a great picture, which of course is now included.
 * The problem was that once the calculations were made, I couldn't continue with the sports analogy. An American baseball (Radius ≈ 3.7 cm) was too small, as was a cricket ball (Radius ≈ 3.6 cm). For the analogy to work mathematically, I needed a well recognized spherical object with a radius of 5.5 cm (110 mm diameter - See Note 5 for calculations). The only objects that came relatively close were a mango and grapefruit. Also, when I linked to the mango article, there was a picture of a "reddish" mango with a radius of roughly 5 cm, not a bad analogy.  So it seemed like a mango, of all the objects identified, would be the most easily recognized internationally for the analogy to work.  Finally regarding the fruit's asymmetric shape, that may not be such a bad thing since Betelgeuse, it appears, shares the same characteristic.
 * One last point: mangoes vary in size. That's both good and bad insofar as the analogy is concerned.  The 2004 Perrin angular measurement of 43.33 mas for Betelgeuse would equate to a mango radius of roughly 7 cm in lieu of the 5.5 cm radius that is derived from the Weiner estimate. (55.2 mas. See Note 1 for size comparisons).  In this case, the mango analogy still works, though it would be substantially larger (7cm vs 5.5 cm), which is not unusual.  Also to put things into perspective, an average soccer ball has a radius of around 11 cm, way too large for the analogy to have any mathematical rigor.  Hope this helps.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Of particular interest in this respect"; "If we assume" unencyc
 * both instances have been edited--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "SIMBAD astronomical database signifying that it is" comma after database
 * Hmmm! Thanks for the extraordinary focus on detail.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "and signifies that it is an intermediate" maybe switch signifies to indicates (or something) to avoid repetition with previous sentence
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "However given some of the recent findings" However, when used to start a sentence, must be followed by a comma
 * done--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "However given some of the recent findings, this classification may be outdated, as there is evidence Betelgeuse is actually much more luminous than Deneb and other stars in its class." Add reference for this last sentence of paragraph
 * Used the ESO0927 ref and added the following quote to the reference "ESO notes in the article that the supergiant's luminosity is at least 100,000 Suns, thus confirming a luminosity at least double that of Deneb." I think we're adequately covered here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "If we assume an average" refactor to remove "we"
 * done--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "the human eye simply cannot perceive the star's intrinsic brightness." source?
 * will need to research I forget where this came from.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * does mass really need to be linked?
 * No. I had thought it might be useful at the beginning of the Properties section.  But the blue link is already provided in the Starbox.  That's sufficient.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * link for solar wind
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "schock structures" - spelling?
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * link G star, α2 Her
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "mainstar -> one word or two?
 * Two. I believe I've seen scientific journals using one word "mainstar".  I'll have to keep a close eye on that.  The feature article Binary star however uses "main star", as do most recognized dictionaries.  So we'll go with that.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "concluding that red stars dominate mass return to the Galaxy." italics necessary?
 * No. De-italicized.--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * link carbon monoxide
 * Done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "(~2-3 AU)", "(~10-40 AU)" use endashes for number ranges
 * done--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * " Curiously, water-vapor had been"
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "SiO and Al2O3" links
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * in the VLT image captions, "View" doesn't need to be capitalized
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Between two and seven stellar radii (~10-40 AU) astronomers" I think this needs a comma after the parenthetical part
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "composed of elemental abundances C, N and O (Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen)" missing word "of" after abundances?
 * I think we're OK without it. It's how the scientific source material was written. But given your earlier suggestion of blue linking the molecules SiO and Al2O3, I decided to continue with the same theme and link these elements to their main articles as well.  It also avoids a certain redundancy.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "dense atmosphere with a remarkably complex structure."
 * I decided on another solution here as the phrase "remarkably complex structure" actually comes from Jeremy Lim, one of Betelgeuse's more notable researchers. So now the phrase is in quotes with reference attached.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "3,450 ± 850K" Kelvin has already been linked previously, and written with a space before the unit
 * delinked.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a global search throughout the whole document. Now there is only one blue link for "K".  Also like the ° symbol, the "K" is attached to the number in all instances. I checked other featured articles like Sirius, and as you point out there is a space between the number and the "K".  This is not the convention that scientific journals use however.  Here's an example of an abstract from Jeremy Lim showing how the "K" is attached.  I think we should go with that.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The VLA images" has VLA been defined?
 * It is now, in the Enigmatic parallax section.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "a discovery which, although unexpected" what was unexpected, the decreasing temperature as it extends outward, or its very existence?
 * It's very existence. Changes made.  I think it's clear now.  If not, let me know.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "possibly containing CN" CN as in cyanogen or as in carbon and nitrogen? Similar, is CO later carbon monoxide or carbon and oxygen? I think it isn't necessary to define abbreviations of these compounds ("…elemental abundances C, N and O (Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen)") as they aren't used very much in the subsequent text and it's less confusing to the reader to just write them in full.
 * To be honest, I'm a little stumped here. There are several conflicting forces in my mind.  The first is to make the article easily understandable for the reader, as you point out.  What bothers me is every field has its jargon&mdash;a jargon which in many ways is more communicative than spelling things out.  For instance, the scientific papers from which this section is derived speak of a "CNO analysis", which to me suggests that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".  Consequently, the whole which could lose its meaning if you spell things out.  In this respect, I believe bluelinks can serve a very useful function here, as they preserve the "look and feel" of what might be standard jargon in the field, while at the same time making it easily understandable.  The other competing force in my mind is article consistency.  It made sense to blue link SiO and Al2O3 as this is how these molecules are most likely identified.  Well, having gone down this road already, spelling everything out in other places seems inconsistent.  I know the line here is a little fuzzy.  Suffice to say that I believe blue links represent the most elegant solution, even if it means that they are repeated more than once so the reader doesn't get lost.  Any thoughts on this?  Is there a hard and fast rule with blue links?  In the interim, I've used blue links to clarify.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Hubble Space Telescope (HST)" the abbreviation is defined here but I don't see it being used again
 * deleted abbreviation.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "However in 2004 observations with the STIS, Hubble's high-precision spectrometer, pointed to the existence of warm chromospheric plasma at least one arcsecond away from the star, suggesting a size to the chromosphere of almost 200 AU or seven times the Neptunian orbit." slightly awkward sentence construction ("suggesting a size to", initial however needs comma)
 * You're right! I just went ahead and split the sentence in two, mentioning that the 200 AU figure is derived from a 197 pc assumption.  That will be useful, especially if the reader clicks on the accompanying ref.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The CfA team led by Alex Lobel concluded that the spatially resolved STIS spectra directly demonstrate the co-existence of warm chromospheric plasma with cool gas in Betelgeuse's circumstellar dust envelope." citation?
 * The ref was in the previous sentence. So I doubled up here.  Is that what I should do?  Or is it best just to move the earlier ref to the end of the paragraph?--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "put forth by Sutton et al." et al. should be in italics, but I think it's better form to use "and colleagues". Check for similar instances later
 * I decided to go with your first suggestion (italics) for two reasons: 1) it's the only time I've used this approach and 2) I've already used the term "colleagues" four times already, so I'd like to avoid any redundancy. Hope that's OK.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "located 1 pc (206,265 AU)" parsec already linked
 * delinked.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "If we use the Jovian orbit"
 * cleaned up.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "the size of this outer shell is almost fourteen times the size of our Solar System." SS already linked (twice) previously. Source for this statement/calculation?
 * delinked.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * will need to research a reference --Sadalsuud (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * fix caption spelling: "Artist depction"
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Celestia's computerized depiction" tweak wording: the depiction does not belong to or originate from Celestia
 * I'm a little confused here. When I click on the photo it says the source is from Celestia.  There's actually an article on Celestia which says that the software is used by NASA AND ESA and is free, which I presume allows one to create the kind of photos we see here. If anything, it might actually be useful to provide a blue link, as other readers may find this page useful.  What do you think?--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Supporting this hypothesis are a number of unusual features which have been observed in the interstellar medium of the Orion Molecular Cloud Complex and which suggest" these which's should be thats
 * In order to avoid redundancy, I used one "that" and one comma, thus making the latter part of the sentence a non-restrictive clause.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "brightest recorded; outshining the Moon" semicolon should be comma
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * link neutrino
 * linked.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Star system section

 * link speckle interferometry
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "with a position angle of 273 degrees" define the acronym PA here, as it's used later (and then unlink the following one)
 * I edited the section as recommended, but also did a global search for the term "position angle". The phrase also shows up in the Recent studies subsection at the beginning of the document.  So I'm uncertain as to how to handle this situation.  The most important placement of the blue link (if there has to be only one) is here in this section, I believe, since position angles are a central topic relative to star systems.  Also, since most readers don't typically read an article from beginning to end in one sitting, but rather bounce around looking for the information they need, it seems like this concept should be blue linked here.  What I've done, therefore, is create two blue links, one in the Recent studies section and one here.  Does this conform to MoS?--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "measured at 656.3 (Hα)" do not know what Hα means… alpha Hydrogen?
 * There's a great article on Hα, so I provided the blue link.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * nm is linked three times in this section alone.
 * delinked the other two. I thought of inserting "nanometer (nm)", but that would be like writing "kilometer (km)" earlier in the article&mdash;an edit that would seem superfluous.  Any thoughts?  Should we define "nanometer" in its first instance?


 * "In the years that followed, different teams of astronomers monitored the data in the hope of obtaining additional confirmation." Monitored what data? The last paragraph implied that data from the time period 1968 to 1983 was used for this analysis; was there new data coming in? Would "analysed" be a better verb than "monitored"?
 * Thanks for pointing out the vagueness of the last statement. It has been replaced with "astronomers conducted a number of studies", which the subsequent sentence corroborates.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "In 1987, Andrea Dupree observed" who is this person?
 * Noticed that Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics had been mentioned earlier in the article, so cleaned up blue links and added language to the effect of Dupree being one of Karovska's colleagues.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "However, it appears that such detection never materialized." awkward sentence construction
 * replaced with "However, in the years that followed no such confirmation was ever published." I hope this works.  I did global searches on the name Dupree in ADS and never found any such confirmation, so I think we're covered here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 10-15 endash, not hyphen
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "or the more likely scenario of "large-scale convection in the stellar atmosphere" as suggested by Schwarzschild." italics necessary? Same question for the italicized sentence in the next paragraph.
 * Once again, I'm not clear on when to italicize and when not to. I reviewed MoS and it seems to provide a lot of leeway.  In doing the research to produce this article, one cannot help but notice different blogs wondering why an announcement was made regarding stellar companions, and then surprisingly nothing but silence since... for 25 years.  So the intention behind these italics is to jump off the page and answer that question.  I'm happy to get rid of the italics, if you think this is best. It would be useful to know, however, if the current usage is justified.--Sadalsuud (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "this time under the helm of Richard. W. Wilson, noting that the" Is Richard the guy's last name, or is that a stray period in there?
 * a non-restrictive clause surrounded by two commas.--Sadalsuud (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "these features were fainter at the 710 than at 700 nm"
 * The phraseology originated with a scientific journal, but I agree it was rather sloppy, so I reworked the whole sentence.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The full-paragraph quote from Karovska 1992 seems out of place; first, quote that long should be blockquoted according the MOS, but more importantly, as a reviewer, I'd wonder why it wasn't just rewritten in your own words.
 * paraphrased the first two sentences, and quoted the last. The pivotal phrase that needs to be in quotes, i.e. "which presently remains a puzzle", has been retained, as it effectively underpins the whole point of this section--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Since then, researchers turned their attention" -> researchers have turned
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "although as Haubois and his team reiterate" other researchers get their first names included on first mention
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "As the decade unfolds and new technologies are brought to unraveling the star's enigmatic past, we will likely see conclusive evidence, one way or another, of any potential star system. Given the planned capabilities of the upcoming Gaia mission, a confirmation could occur any time after the mission's scheduled launch in December 2012." needs a source
 * done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * is it just me or does this aperture mask illustration appear to be in the wrong section?
 * I can change the caption so it relates more to this section. However, I'm looking for a better picture to go here.  Well see what I can find.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * there shouldn't be an external link in the Spitzer telescope image; it should be on the image description page or in a footnote.
 * included link in a footnote.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving target‡

 * is it just me or does this aperture mask illustration appear to be in the wrong section?
 * I can change the caption so it relates more to this section. However, I'm looking for a better picture to go here.  Let's see what I can find.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've spent quite a bit of time on this one issue and I could use some help. The issue here, of course, is to include a picture that is relevant.  Here is the one I'd like to include.  It would really tell the story of this Star system section.  But I'm concerned about uploading it into Commons as it might have copyright issues.  The picture is The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse.  As Buscher and Wilson point out in the 1990s, it was the bright spots on Betelgeuse that in a sense "eclipsed" any evidence of stellar companions.  Doing this search in Google shows that the picture is being used on other credible websites, so I can only assume that we should be able to upload it.  Any thoughts on how to do this?--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictures by NASA are ok to use. When you upload to Commons, select "Upload work from a government source", and then under "Licensing", select "Original work of NASA". Sasata (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, be careful, not all NASA pictures are freely licensed. Certain images on Astronomy Picture of the Day are copyrighted and used with permission. The "Spotty Betelguese" image for example is marked Credit: Xavier Haubois. For more details see Commons:Commons:Licensing:
 * "Especially the images on the favorite website "Astronomy Picture of the Day" are in most cases not within the public domain but copyrighted by their individual authors (so please do not upload images from there to Wikimedia Commons)." -84user (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnological influences section

 * "/ˈbiːtəldʒuːs/ (Canadian Oxford Dictionary)" vs. "/ˈbiːtəldʒuːs/ as in the film Beetlejuice…" I can't see any difference between these two phonetic spellings
 * link etymology
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Multiple sources with competing etymologies exist to describe the star's name." maybe switch "to" to "that" else it appears as if they only reason they exist is to describe the name
 * reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * who is Riccioli? Paul Kunitzsch?
 * added x 2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * added ref to Kunitzsch's famous book Arabische Sternnamen in Europa where he likely made this argument. If the ref is superfluous, please delete.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * could some of the short paragraphs be combined with others?
 * not sure why the words Ardra, Bahu,  and Bašn are in a smaller font size (or a different font, can't tell); same with "Shēnxiùsì" next paragraph
 * the sentence/paragraph with the Chinese name needs a source (and/or combine with the following sentence/paragraph)
 * "The star's unusual name spawned the 1988 film Beetlejuice" is "spawned" the right verb here? How about "inspired"?
 * ok. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "In the popular science fiction series "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams , "Ford Prefect"… "
 * ok. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "circa 1630 A.D" two periods or none
 * none then Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)