Template:Did you know nominations/Hydrogen-deficient star


 * 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator.

Hydrogen-deficient star

 * ... that hydrogen-deficient stars were discovered in 1891, but it wasn't until the 1930s that these stars were commonly believed by astronomers to exist? Source:
 * ALT1:... that it took more than 40 years after hydrogen-deficient stars were discovered for astronomers to accept that such stars exist? Source:
 * Comment: My first DYK nomination
 * Comment: My first DYK nomination

Created/expanded by Mark viking (talk). Self-nominated at 23:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Nominated within one week of creation and at over 6500 bytes easily satisfies the length criterion. QPQ does not appear to be required; QPQ check finds no previous notices, and the user's talk page history does not have any entries by DYK bots. Regarding references: are refs 2 and 6 the same, or did you provide an incorrect link for ref 6? (I get the same article when following the links.) Given that, I can't find "helium flash" info in the current ref6 (ie ref 2) for low-mass supergiants, nor the info cited to ref 6 in "Formation and evolution". Is there a better markup or notation for ions; on my browser, "HeII" appears as "Hell" (as in "fire and brimstone"). I assume the final sentence ("The double degenerate scenario provides a better fit to the observational data") is based on the second paragraph of "Concluding remarks" from the source. I am assuming good faith for sources I cannot access (refs 1, 3, 5). Regarding the hooks, is "exist" appropriate here? If I've read the sources correctly, astronomers generally agreed that the discovered stars existed, but didn't believe they were of a different class (ie - hydrogen-deficient). Have I read this incorrectly? Mind  matrix  16:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for agreeing to review this and for your improvements to the article. Let me address your points:
 * Q: are refs 2 and 6 the same, or did you provide an incorrect link for ref 6?
 * A:
 * Q: I can't find "helium flash" info in the current ref6 (ie ref 2) for low-mass supergiants
 * A:
 * Q: nor the info cited to ref 6 in "Formation and evolution
 * A:
 * Q: Is there a better markup or notation for ions
 * A:
 * Q: I assume the final sentence ("The double degenerate scenario provides a better fit to the observational data") is based on the second paragraph of "Concluding remarks" from the source.
 * A:
 * Q: Regarding the hooks, is "exist" appropriate here?
 * A:
 * Q: Have I read this incorrectly?
 * A:
 * --Mark viking (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no time to deal with all this. Withdraw. --Mark viking (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)