Template:Did you know nominations/Astronomical Society of New South Wales


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Astronomical Society of New South Wales

 * ... that over 500 comets, asteroids, and novae have been discovered by three members of the Astronomical Society of New South Wales?
 * Comment: Article created in my userspace over weeks, moved to mainspace on July 1.
 * Comment: Article created in my userspace over weeks, moved to mainspace on July 1.

Created by Gronk Oz (talk). Self nominated at 14:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Clear, structured article was nominated within 7 days of its appearance in mainspace. The number given in the hook takes a moment to sum up from the tallies of the three observers but seems to be supported by cites. Length is fine and the pictures seem OK for CC. QPQ is satisfied. It is good to go. TSRL (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this from prep as I cannot verify the number of objects declared in the hook. Nowhere in the article does it state a total, the reader is apparently supposed to aggregate the totals made by the three different astronomers himself but the sources do not appear to support the text, particularly with regard to McNaught but also with Garradd. I wasted a lot of time trying to verify this article which the original reviewer passed with the comment "seems to be supported by cites." Either it is or it isn't, "seems" isn't good enough. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply: I apologize for the difficulty you experienced in reconciling the number in the DYK hook to the article and the sources. To try to rectify this, I have updated the article with a better reference for McNaught's discoveries, which clearly list 72 asteroids and comets from NASA's own records (which is slightly more than my previous reference). However, I realize there is still no summary which gives the single total. I tried to add a table here but I can't get it to display in this template, so the numbers are as follows (updated with the more current McNaught reference):
 * Comets: Evans(1) McNaught(71) Garrard(16) Total=88
 * Asteroids: McNaught(1) Garrard(1) Total=2
 * Novae: Evans(40) Garrard(4) Total=44
 * So the grand total is now 134. However, I am not sure whether such a table would add much to the article itself, other than simplifying comparison to the hook. Is that worth adding in this case? --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't need to add a table, in fact I'd advise against it. But a sentence summarizing the totals found by these three members, with all the appropriate cites at the end of it, would be very helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I could add something like this at the start of that section, though to me it reads a bit awkward (especially Garradd's novae since I can only find individual primary references for each of those). With or without those, it easily supports the hook.
 * Three members of the Society have particularly notable discoveries: Robert Evans (42 supernovae, 1 comet), Robert McNaught (72 comets and asteroids), and Gordon Garradd (16 comets, 4 novae)         (Note that I have removed the actual Reference tags here, since they were causing Reflist errors on this page.)


 * All you need to do is repeat more or less what is said in the hook, something like: Three members of the society have collectively discovered over 120 comets, asteroids, and novae.[cites here]. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ It is immediately under the heading "Notable members' achievements. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The second reference only lists astronomical object named "McNaught", it doesn't say these are all objects discovered by this particular McNaught (indeed the first reference names a different discoverer). Gatoclass (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Wow, I learn something every day. I have seen that source used as a reference many times and accepted it, but you are quite right.  Thanks for pointing that out.  The good news is that when I found a reliable source (International Astronomical Union) which is definitely by discoverer, the numbers were much higher, especially for McNaught.  The only down side is that the reader needs to scroll down that list (or search it) to find the individual discoverer's total.  So I have changed the hook from "over 120" to "over 500", used the IAU reference on that lead sentence, and expanded the wording to distinguish the number discovered from the number named after the person.  I hope this is satisfactory now ... let me know! --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Well done! I'm pleased I made the effort to pursue this issue now. Original hook verified. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your persistence and help, ; this was my first time through the DYK process, so if I do it again I will be able to make it much smoother for everybody involved! --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I am concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "Eleven years after that grand opening in 1959, the clubhouse was demolished. Coinciding with that event was Gordon Patston's success in being awarded a Churchill Fellowship to study aeronautical engineering in England" with "Eleven years after that grand and happy opening in 1959, the clubhouse was demolished. Coinciding with that traumatic event was Gordon’s success in being awarded a Churchill Fellowship to study aeronautical engineering in England". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ You're quite right, - I kept meaning to go back and fix up that and a few other areas, but in the end it slipped my mind.  I think you will find it is better now. Thanks for bearing with me on this. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Did the edits here and here address the above concerns about close paraphrasing? Perhaps it is time for another review. Thanks Gronk Oz for working quickly to address these concerns. Nmillerche (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg A review of the significant edits that Gronk Oz has made to address the close paraphrasing problem (a matter further complicated when the Society adopted language from this article for their own page, as described in this talk page discussion), as well as strengthening the article's citations, has satisfied any outlying concerns as far as I can tell. Article is long enough, was new enough at nomination, and now free of copyvio concerns. Per discussion above, hook has been verified, and is interesting enough. Good to go for DYK. Nmillerche (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not finding any further issues on spotchecks - good work! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)