Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apus/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2017.

Apus

 * Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a small constellation. A few of us have been working on getting all constellation articles improved over the years. This is a small one and easy to digest. Will address issues pronto so have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim
You could write these in your sleep by now, so no real problems, just a couple of niggles to show I've actually read it Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you can avoid repeating "feet" in para 1, but you should be able to avoid repeating "brightest star" in para 2
 * yep. first I can't see how but second now rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The separate components can be resolved with binoculars, a telescope, or the naked eye.&mdash; if resolvable with the naked eye, aren't the optical instruments redundant here?
 * good point - rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * approximately 2059&mdash; in what sense is a 4-sig fig number approximate?
 * the source has that number. All of these are estimates for very distant objects...which gives me an idea.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: Overall it looks good, and appears to satisfy the FA criteria. However, it looks like the statement about the younger age of IC 4499 has been shown to be incorrect. Walker et al (2011) give an age of $12 Gyr$. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * aha interesting. debate to that level of detail probably not notable enough for the parent article so removed the young age statement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: Recusing as coordinator for this one. Up to the usual standard, and just a few nit-picks from me, none of which affect my support at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Bayer called it Apis Indica while Johannes Kepler and his son-in-law Jacob Baertsch called it Apus or Avis Indica.": This is the only time we mention Kepler; famous as he is, I think we need a word to say why he matters here. Also, there is no context for where they called it this. Bayer did so in an Atlas, so I assume Kepler and Baertsch didn't only do so over the dinner table! I also wonder if "while " is the best word here as it could imply at the same time in this context.
 * tricky - they were all notable German astronomers - so I added "fellow astronomers" to emphasise this was part of their business (mapping and naming the sky) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Apus later lost some of its tail when Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille used those stars to establish Octans in the 1750s": Coming straight after the section on the Bird of Paradise having its feet taken off, this is a little distracting, and I had to re-read to realise we had returned to the constellation.
 * Aaww, I thought it was quite cute. Anyway, does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "visible to observers south of 7°N": Which would be where?
 * Brilliant! been here over ten years and never twigged we had these - so fixed like this, as source doesn't say what places these parallels these align with and wouldn't want to do OR.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we link or explain "main sequence"?
 * linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "It spent much of its life as a blue-white (B-type) main sequence star before expanding, cooling and brightening as it used up its core hydrogen,[14] now having swollen to 48 times the Sun's diameter,[15] and shining with a luminosity approximately 928 times that of the Sun, with a surface temperature of 4312 K.": Could this sentence be broken up a bit? There's quite a lot going on.
 * split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Nearby Zeta is Iota Apodis": Nearby confused me at first, as I thought "Nearby Zeta" was the subject of this sentence. Would "near" work, as I think that would avoid the problem.
 * duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I often wonder do non-science people realise what ± means? I'm not sure there is an easy way to explain it, unless there is a link. (And I'm not suggesting removing the symbol, just wondering aloud)
 * I used to say "around" but the margins of error make it more precise. I agree it is hard to link or explain. I tend to think it is common enough now for people to understand what it means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "has turned out to be a brown dwarf": Turned out is slightly unencyclopedic, especially in an article like this.
 * tweaked - trying to use plain english Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "a predicted mass": Can we expand this just a touch so that the lay reader doesn't think that this is just a wild guess.
 * changed to "calculated" - it's rather complex how this is done and might be a bit wordy for this article. Need to think about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That works perfectly for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do we need to say when it became a "modern constellation"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that by reading the article it becomes clear that it was 1922/30 that the constellations were set in stone....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, missed that, sorry! Sarastro1 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Apus IAU.svg: Free image on Commons used to illustrate the constellation, a good usage. License supported by source website.
 * File:BayerUran1661apuschamtri.jpg: Free image on Commons, used to show the old portrayal of the constellation. Changed the license templates a little to use a broader and more precise one, but unquestionably PD for age.
 * File:Constellation Apus.jpg: Free image on Commons. Used to show how the constellation appears in the sky. Source website appears to imply a noncommercial license, though - is a free license specified somewhere? It also says own work.
 * Till Credner added this one himself. I am not fussed either way and if in doubt (as now) I am happy to leave it out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Might want to use ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Potw1431a.jpg: Free image on Commons, illustrating a stellar object discussed in the article. Seems like a legit free license as well.
 * alt text added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note
Just the regular source review needed now I think -- I know it's listed at WT:FAC, just for benefit of those stopping by here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review: All sources of an appropriate quality. The only issue I notice is that we are not consistent with print sources: we give a publisher for some but not all (e.g. Houk and Cowley; although the publisher is pretty obvious, I think it should be there for consistency, unless I'm missing something) and a location for some but not all. Also, is there a reason why journals are cited without "p." or "pp.", but books include this? (I assume it's a template thing) Otherwise, sources are fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * locations added to book publishers now. journal page ranges don't add the p's for some reason Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment
Cas, I removed a few duplinks and while doing so noticed that you use orange giant, which redirects to giant star, but also pipe orange giant (and yellow giant) to giant star -- perhaps should consistently go one way or t'other, will leave to you after I promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.