Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/61 Cygni/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

61 Cygni

 * Nominator(s): -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. The article seems to meet all the criteria for a FA and I have made still more updation and minor fixes so as to meet the criteria. The article is currently a GA and the article have undergone major expansion after that. Top editors aren't active now and RJHall retired a little while ago. Still, I have done much to make it meet to the criteria. -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Review – The article is in decent shape, although perhaps a little short. Here are a few observations:
 * The 'absolute magnitude' values in the infobox need a proper citation; just computing them isn't enough. (Kervella et al. (2008) give the absolute bolometric magnitudes for the two stars; it might be better to use that field instead.)
 * Done. A better cite of stellar-database is now used. -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, well you've replaced what was a perfectly suitable citation for the apparent magnitude with a different citation. The absolute magnitude values are not cited. :-) I would again suggest just using the Kervalla et al. (2008) citation and the absolute bolometric magnitude field of the template. Praemonitus (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I stick on simbad..-The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that reference does not supply an absolute magnitude. Praemonitus (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * stellardatabase did..:-) -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * stellardatabase doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Fixed it for you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article needs to explain the meaning of the name '61 Cygni'. For example, where did it originate?
 * Done. -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The meaning of 'K5 V' and 'K7 V' needs to be clarified, as the reader might not be familiar with the MK notation and its connection to the statement "K class (orange) main sequence stars".
 * Done. Piped both to K-type main-sequence star. -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Observation history section should use consistent units for the parallax and be consistent about labeling parallax measurements.
 * Done. -The Herald the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When you convert arc seconds to mas (milli-arcseconds), you also need to multiply the values by x1000. Praemonitus (talk)
 * Fixed it..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The final two sentences of the Observation history section needs a citation.
 * Added two reliable cites. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * References need to be properly formatted in a manner consistent with the other citations. Praemonitus (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The term 'old-disk stars' needs to be explained.
 * Done. Piped to Circumstellar disk -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well no, that's not what 'old-disk star' means. It's a type of galactic component. Praemonitus (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Piped it again..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It means it is a star belonging to the old disk population; not an old star belonging to the galactic disk. This should probably be covered on the Milky Way article. Praemonitus (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done now..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could use this reference to note whether an infrared excess has (or has not) been found.
 * Couldn't find the related star. Is it necessary to include that too? Since you said 'perhaps'.... -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I listed the wrong volume: A near-infrared interferometric survey of debris-disc stars. III. First statistics based on 42 stars observed with CHARA/FLUOR. The results are summarized on p. 15. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Move the comments to the correct bullet. Praemonitus (talk))
 * I read it but it seems to me like there aren't any IR excess as they say much about GJ 581, GJ 667C, and GJ 876 M-dwarfs. GJ 820 has its name only in the table. So should I include in the article that there aren't any IR excess? Plus, I couldn't deduce from them that there are any habitable zones either. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the absence of a detectable IR excess is still of interest because it tells the reader something about the state of the system. The reference for the habitability radii is in a separate bullet above. Praemonitus (talk)
 * I think the same is explained in Refining planetary boundaries section. Right? -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 07:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to me as that 1998 result is contradicted by the more recent data. Perhaps there's another source that will discuss it? Praemonitus (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this point. Praemonitus (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You could also use Table 7 in this reference to speak to the stellar habitable zones around the two stars.
 * Similarly, here too, couldn't find the star. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is listed with the designation "GJ 820". Praemonitus (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Still couldn't get it. Please link it to the page itself...-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 15:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is part of a PDF document. Have you tried reading the arXiv article and scrolling down to near the end? Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Checking through the references, I found "stellar-database.com" is being used in several cases. It is not clear that this a reliable source&mdash;the site is maintained by a Science Fiction writer&mdash;and so I think it should be replaced. Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Praemonitus, Replace all? I have replaced two of them with simbad, which is already used many-a-times. Two to go..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ST11
 * The entire "Distance" section is a huge eyesore and frankly unimportant. Readers aren't going to care about every single distance estimate published, and are only going to care about the most accurate one, which is already present in the infobox. I'd remove the whole section.
 * I could see that each values makes the approximation more clear and shows the readers how they have tried to get the approximation of distance through parallax method. The whole section, similar to that of pi can make it count. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the table helps show how the parallax method works. There's two things wrong with that: I don't see how the table conveys that at all, and such info would not be appropriate for this article but rather for the parallax article. The approximations of pi is different, since the increasing approximations of pi has been a subject of intense study itself, and well, pi is much more important to everyday life than this single star. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But is the removal of the section necessary to result in further shortening of the article? -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section isn't needed because all it conveys is the fact that the instrumentation is growing more accurate as time passes. It doesn't tell the reader anything new about the stars. If you absolutely have to retain it, I'd suggest moving it to the end of the article (as an appendix) so that it doesn't disrupt the flow. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 07:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Both stars in the system are rather typical variable stars (BY Dra and flare). However, I'm not seeing magnitude ranges anywhere in this article for either star, which are absolutely necessary.
 * Now included..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC) StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Overall though, this article is pretty good. It is admittedly somewhat short, but that's not a problem; it's better to have only clear, concise, and relevant information and it covers its topic well.


 * Question. In which book/document did Giuseppe Piazzi first demonstrate its large proper motion. Shouldn't that be somewhere in the reference? I couldn't find any reference to it. --Siddhant (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I felt it very first. Still searching..... -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Since a complete scan of the book is available on Google Books, shouldn't that be linked to (while of course mentioning that the text is in Italian)? Do we know the page number on which 61 Cygni is mentioned (though I agree, that it might be too much to ask for)? --Siddhant (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What is exozodiacal? Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my fault, so I fixed it. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry but with no comments for over two weeks this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.