Talk:Epsilon Aurigae/GA1

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

Review to follow... SkarmCA (talk) 15:24, 11 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:

GA copy edit
The following should be addressed before a pass is given:

Lead
First paragraph
 * "It known traditionally as …" → "It is traditionally known as ..."
 * The wikilink on F0 redirects to the incorrect anchor in Stellar classification. Try Class-F rather than Type-F.
 * Remove the semi-colon between sentences involving the invisible companion and the brightness. This works better as two separate sentences.
 * "2,000 light years distant" From what? Obvious to those who have an interest in astronomy, yes, but not everyone.

Second paragraph
 * Wikilink Johan Fritsch. You did later on in the article, but didn't in the Lead.
 * nce again break up the semi-colon and make two separate sentences between Heis and Argelander's observations and Ludendorff's information.

Third paragraph
 * In the first sentence you can remove the comma.
 * Comment I broke this up; the sentence seems kind of awkward now. Maybe I can split the two phrases into seperate sentences. --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Idea Actually if you just add 'since' instead of the semicolon it works just fine. SkarmCA (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Being a semicolon freak, I put one in between the two phrases instead. Does it flow better? --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At the end of the first sentence you have a period before the inline citation and again after it. Please remove the second one.


 * Alright! Lead's pretty much done. --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Observational history

 * "… Johann Fritsch's 1821 observations suggest he the first…" → "… suggest he was the first…"
 * In the second sentence remove "regularly" and just mention that it was observed every few years rather than throwing in the ambiguous term and then clarifying.
 * "… significantly dim by 1847, which attracted…" → "… significantly dim by 1847 which by then had attracted the full atention of both men."
 * Well, it was the fact that the star had dimmed so much that attracted the attention. When Heis and Argelander checked the star again after a few years, this piqued their attention. --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the middle of the first paragraph you can remove the semi colon and make two separate, less complex, sentences.
 * "… 1874 and 1875, and nearly thirty…" → "… 1874 and 1875 and, nearly thirty…"
 * In the second paragraph once again the semi colon isn't needed. Two sentences make for easier reading.

Etymology
 * In the first sentence remove the comma.
 * In the last sentence make sure the comma and period are after the second set of quotations for he-goat and she-goat respectively.
 * This seems kind of strange to me... --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's called dropping it like it's hot. :P --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

System components

 * In the first sentence the wikilink to an anchor in Stellar classification should go to #Class_F rather than F-type.
 * In the third sentence the commans surrounding "the system brightens slightly" are unneeded.
 * Doing this kinda makes the sentence seem cumbersome; how does breaking it up into two sentences look? --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Overall very well explained!

Visible component
 * Is there any way to find a source for the first sentence? Although if you do mention what its apparent magnitude is you could probably get away with just sourcing that.
 * I cannot find a source for it being one of the most luminous stars in the sky. I'm going to remove that info. The rest, however, I have cited.--Starstriker7(Talk) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Once again well phrased and explained.

Eclipsing component
 * In the first sentence I would just change the semicolon to a period and form two sentences.
 * In the second paragraph's second sentence the comma between 'eclipsed companion' and 'resulting' is unneeded.
 * The last sentence in the section about the next eclipse seems a little 'personal' about hopes for extra research since it is not sourced. It is possible you could just mention that the next eclipse is to occur between 2009 and 2011, and as such next research may be presented.
 * Whoops...I forgot to remove this before. That was there before I started working on the article. I've found something that may relate to it, though, and placed it in the Observational History section. --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Observation
 * You love the semicolon. :) Anyway, in the first sentence you could remove it and make two sentences.

Halright! --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Could the table of Epsilon Aurgiae companions located at the bottom of the article be moved into the system components section? This seems like a more likely place for it, although that is just my personal preference.
 * I can't move it because it conflicts with the star infobox on the right side. If I put it in the Observation section, it moves to the bottom of the infobox and cuts the External Links section in half... --Starstriker7(Talk) 20:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent article! SkarmCA (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The various optical components (not associated with the system except by line-of-sight) should not be listed with semimajor axes in the infobox, a quantity which implies a bound orbit. Furthermore, position angle is not inclination! It would also be useful to get some orbital elements for the eclipsing binary itself in the article. Icalanise (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I'm not exactly sure what you want me to search for...Should I just delete the info pertaining to the semimajor axes? And exactly what kind of orbital elements would you want incorporated into the infobox (other than that of position angles, of course)? --Starstriker7(Talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well since the line-of-sight components are listed in a separate table at the end of the article, I dropped them from the infobox. The orbit I've put in is for the eclipsing binary and is from SB9. Confusingly, the secondary object (i.e. the object which is likely to be a disc of some kind) which is often referred to as "Epsilon Aurigae B" (e.g. ) is NOT the same as CCDM 05020+4350B, which refers to a line-of-sight component. Icalanise (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool; I thank you for this. However, I'm still unsure of how I can contribute. Is there any way I can help? --Starstriker7(Talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just checking in; are there any new updates to this review? It is currently the seventh longest-held article at WP:GAN and has not had any updates in nearly a month. Gary King ( talk ) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There really isn't anything new. SkarmCA's only problem with the article was prose quality, which has been fixed, and Icalanise's only problem with the article involved some extraneous data in the infobox. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ping Skarm since he's been editing infrequently. If no response by Thursday then I'll look into this myself. Wizardman  16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys. Especially to Starstriker. Real life overcame me for a while and I only checked in... and recently forgot I even started this. I've passed the review due to the specifications I outlined before. Once again my apologies especially to the author. SkarmCA (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)