Talk:Delta Muscae/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Prose
I'd like to do a more thorough review of the prose after the other issues have been resolved. For now, here are the issues that I noticed:
 * These sentences seem to conflict with each other. Is it a giant star or just larger than a dwarf? Is it a dwarf that will become a giant?
 * "K2 stars are on the smaller end of the Harvard spectral classification list, solely being larger than Class-M dwarves."
 * "The second part of the classification, III, specifies that Delta Muscae is a giant star which has yet to reach the main sequence of star life like our sun."

MoS

 * Uranometria is mentioned in the lead but not in the rest of the article.
 * If spectroscopic binary can't be explained in the lead, just call it a binary.
 * The constellation must be explained later in the article, not just in the lead. You probably need to add a "History" section for this and the Bayer stuff.

Original research

 * "With this data, it can be calculated that Delta Muscae is situated at a distance of 27.8 parsecs, or 91.0 light years, from the sun." The calculation needs to be explained in a note.

Major aspects
For a subject this mundane I should not come away from reading it with unanswered questions. I had two, both of which can be answered by bringing in additional source material. Otherwise, this article looks very close to Good Article quality. I am impressed that you were able to write such a nice article using only a few databases as sources. This review is on hold for improvements. Wronkiew (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This star is part of the constellation Musca, which is supposed to look like a bug. What part of the bug does δ represent?
 * The star is a spectroscopic binary, which means that its companion was identified by a doppler shift. This shift should be periodic. What was the period? Does the period allow a mass determination of the star or its invisible companion? I found two sources which contain more information on this binary system:
 * Sixth Catalog of Orbits of Visual Binary Stars

Comments
Some issues I have with this article. Icalanise (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence suffers from excessive run-on. From this sentence it isn't entirely clear whether it means that Delta Muscae is the nearest spectroscopic binary in Musca, or the nearest star system in Musca.
 * This must be fixed before the article is promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "often catalogued as HD 112985" ... really? It may often be referred to by its HD designation, but the HD catalog has been completed.
 * This would be good to fix, but it is not necessary for the review. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "The main star is classified as a giant star with an orange tint" - is that actually a classification or a statement of what it is? It doesn't look like a formal classification to me.
 * Good to fix, not necessary for the review. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no source for the assertion that Delta Muscae is the nearest star to the Earth in the constellation Musca. Really? No dim M-dwarfs in that direction? Solely linking the Gliese catalogue is not relevant as it is not necessarily complete. Since it is a well-known fact that our knowledge of red dwarf and brown dwarf stars is very incomplete beyond a few parsecs, stating that there are nearly 3800 stars closer to Earth than delta Muscae is misleading.
 * This must be fixed before the article is promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "3.61(v) to be exact" - is that exact or just more precise? What does the v in brackets mean? Do you mean the visual magnitude?
 * Good to fix, not necessary for the review. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no source for the assertion that Delta Muscae can be seen without light pollution - the Hipparcos catalog which is given as a reference does not make any statements about naked-eye visibility.
 * This must be fixed before the article is promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "K2 stars are on the smaller end of the Harvard spectral classification list, solely being larger than Class-M dwarves." - this is confusing. This seems to be a confusion of the properties of main-sequence stars and giants. Main sequence K stars are indeed smaller and less luminous than, say, main sequence G stars, but Delta Muscae is NOT a main sequence star. Once you throw out the "main sequence" bit, you can't do such a comparison. You can say a K2III star is cooler than, say, a G2III one (but it is NOT necessarily smaller), but bear in mind that the typical temperature of a given class (e.g. K2) varies with luminosity class (e.g. V, III).
 * This must be fixed before the article is promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The usual plural of "dwarf" in astronomy is "dwarfs" not "dwarves".
 * Good to fix, not necessary for the review. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the additional comments. You caught some serious issues that I had overlooked. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is not promoted. Please re-nominate it after the above issues have been addressed. Wronkiew (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)