Talk:SN 2020fqv

Raise to Mid or High importance?
Re: This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Given the recent news about this being an SN type II "rosetta stone", I'm guessing this is or will be worthy of a higher rating than "low". But I'm no rating expert. Does Mid: Items that people in the know have heard about, while not being over-specialized. fit or could it even be (now or after further study) ''High: Important or famous. Something an undergraduate astronomy student could have heard of or studied.''? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I rated it low. The vast majority of individual astronomical objects are low importance, barring bright naked-eye stars and a handful of other objects that are household names, so that's what I slap on unless it is blatantly famous.  Every new scientific discovery gets a press release describing it the greatest thing since sliced bread, and the hundreds of websites that reproduce the press release can make it look that way.  As for longterm significance, perhaps too early to say.  SN 1987A is rated high importance as an astronomical object, only mid for physics generally, and it completely changed our understanding of supernovae.  I'm struggling to see that this supernova is that important.  Maybe mid if people are still publishing papers about it next year.  For comparison, iPTF14hls, SN 2007bi, SN 2011fe, SN 2014J, SN 2006gy, and ASASSN-15lh are rated as mid importance. SN 2003fg was rated as high importance, but clearly isn't.  I just changed it to mid and it is probably low.  It was lauded at the time, but who has heard of it now?  SN Refsdal is rated as low importance, arguably mid but again who would recognise the name now apart from professional astronomers?  Perhaps best to expand the article first, then worry about the rating.  If there isn't enough material for more than a stub then how important can it be?  Lithopsian (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Great research, explanation and advice!! Thanks. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Given the limited number of papers this supernova has motivated, right now I'd agree with the low rating. That may change in the future. Praemonitus (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Gaps in TESS coverage
What caused the gaps in the TESS coverage right during the ramp up, as seen in the universe today and NASA coverage? Seems like one of the few unfortunate aspects of an otherwise amazing observation campaign! ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)