Talk:Pavo (constellation)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 18:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good. It's short, but the Southern constellations have less history behind them than the northern, so not horribly surprising.

"The name of the brightest star Alpha Pavonis—Peacock—was assigned by Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office in the late 1930s; the RAF insisted that all of the stars must have names, the star hitherto having lacked a proper name." - does this mean the other stars in the constellationhave names from this time, or are there missing words that should clarify it's stars above a certain magnitude?
 * Source just says "bright" - generally this means 1st and/or 2nd magnitude...added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Peacock's mythology dates to Graeco-Roman times and the story of Jason and the Argonauts. [...] . She honored him further by locating his constellation close to Argo Navis, the constellation representing the Argo." - how is this consistent with the constellation being created in the 16th century? Likewise, is the Argus myth actually relevant? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's interesting as the article reflects how Pavo is written about in books on constellations, for instance, see here. I agree it is rather tangential really. given the retrospective link as it were. I can switch it to make it more relevant as the name Junonia Avis was used in one source and hence mention that and then the story. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would work. It'd help if you dated the alternate name as well. That said, I can't help but feel the claimed honouring by putting a constellation near Argo Navis - written, as it is, to imply it appears in the original myth - is spurious and should be dropped. I also suspect that two different Arguses are getting combined in the first myth told - Argus Panoptes being turned into a peacock makes sense. Peacocks have eyes on their tails. Argus the ship builder who made the Argo? I don't think so. It's cited, I know, but I'd question the reliability of the cite. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's one of those interesting situations where (I guess) well meaning but mistaken writers have perpetuated some possibly spurious connections, and we do better by dropping it...but does that fall into OR territory or we conisder it just obvious. I will double check some more sources to see how we can alter it and likely scrub some tangential material. Bit busy today but will see what I can do later 02:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two comments on the same issue. First, I had a problem with the Staal reference in the recently closed FAC on Perseus, where it didn't square with other sources on the subject of chinese constellations. Given that the library catalogue i checked classified Staal as "juvenile nonficiton", i'd treat it with care. Second, i don't think the current para on the greek myth is a model of clarity. It needs to be slightly longer, because at the moment a lot of characters are involved without much explanation: in three sentences we have Argus, Io, Mercury, Jupiter, and Juno. Juno set the story in motion, judging by the content of the third sentence, yet is not introduced in the first sentence. And that first sentence is inexplicably weird really: for an unknown reason, someone is guarding a pregnant person who has been turned into a heifer?? It should be included, it just needs to make more sense...hamiltonstone (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Finally, a citation is needed for the ship being named after it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. I had altercations with the editor inserting this ship material in all manner of star, figures from mythology and constellation etc articles, without success. Good luck finding that ref, Cas. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bugger it - no sources are coming up - not integral to article really anyway, hence removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think, with the changes, this is a GA. ✅. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)