Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barnard's Star

Barnard's Star
Self-nom. I've brought this from 5 to 25K, adding virtually every paper to be found on the star. I think the planet controversy and Project D. set off the dry numbers and make for an interesting read. I'm not the best with numbers and User:RJHall has helped out during its peer review; if I needed to, I'd simply copy a clause from an abstract to make sure I was representing it properly. Also, thanks to User:DogNewTricks for working on images ("I wouldn't have uploaded the file unless NASA told me I could" :). Marskell 10:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - about as comprehensive as one could get, I thought. The only possible weakness is the prose may be too technical and sentences a little long in places but these are minor. I found it OK to read though others mightn't.Cas Liber 11:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I wasn't as relaxed as Cas Liber about the English and started listing the flaws. After a short while I found it was quicker to do an edit myself.  My first problem was with the title: shouldn't it be Barnard's Star?  It is a proper name and so deserves two capital letters. I also pondered whether it deserved to be called the second closest system.  To me 'system' implies that there is more than one object and yet the article goes to great lengths to say that there is no evidence of a system at all.  The reference to 'system'  was therefore deleted.  After that I ploughed on, clarifying where I could.  There may be places where I have changed the intended meaning.  This is not my fault; it is because I was trying to clarify something that wasn't clear to begin with. There are also now a couple of places where red links have appeared because something was not explained ('ARCINS', 'bolometric' and 'space motion').  I hope you find the changes useful, if not please reverse my changes.  Because I have now had an extensive input, I should not vote.  However if you reverse most of my changes, I will oppose only provisionally support until similar changes are made. JMcC 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) and JMcC 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Provisional support English is unclear in many places and suggested improvements have been completely reversed. It needs a full edit to remove its ambiguities. JMcC 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) and JMcC 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, patience. For now, I have reverted because there were obvious errors—that it's too faint to see has nothing to do with its age; Star system quite commonly refers to an isolated star; the sentence in the intro that listed stuff in the body was rm'ed. I will try and re-incorporate your improvements and do, by all means, present a list. Maybe hold off on the "vote"--we're around hour 3 of a week. Marskell 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right about the proper noun; it had been hanging around in my head for a while, but I never systematically compared the sources. A large majority (though not quite all) use upper case. I have changed it, including changing instances in the body (no doubt missed a couple). Marskell 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment "Its apparent magnitude is 9.57." This sentence could use more information, the number by itself does not convey anything to the common reader. I suggest adding that the Sun's magnitude is -26.73 and that the faintest stars observable with naked eye has a magnitude of 6. This would help support the preceeding sentence and give more info. Joelito (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. A bit has been added. Marskell 19:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "In general a gregarious and well-admired man, he may have become embittered toward colleagues who disputed his findings." Is this supported by the reference found later in the paragraph? To me this sentence appears as too much editioralizing, especially the "may" claim. Howewver if supported the by the ref then it would be OK. Joelito (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed "may have become embittered" to "may have felt betrayed", as "betrayed" is used in the source (in a quote from a colleague). The source in general makes it clear the relationship deteriorated completely when Heinz questioned the findings. Marskell 08:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support My concerns have been addressed. Joelito (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support- I don’t know what qualifies for a “significant contributor”, but as Maskell said, I did make a few calls and emails to find a picture. However, I did not edit the text. I support this article because it is very informative. I do not think the information is too in-depth, and can be understood by the majority of readers. Also, the .gif image shows clearly what the “proper motion” means, and how extreme Barnard’s Star is (relative to the surrounding stars).--   &#162;&#178;   Connor K.    12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; It's a good read and an interesting bit of history, at least to me. (I've always had this odd fascination with astrometry and nearby stars.) Just a few minor comments:
 * The first sentence could mention that this is a "very low-mass star", where "very low-mass" is understood in the literature to mean below about 0.4-0.2 solar masses.
 * I would like to ask that the introduction state this is the second closest known star system. There is always the possibility of some very faint nearby star that has yet to be discovered, such as Nemesis (star).
 * The image comparing the dimension of this star to the Sun and Jupiter looks a little rough. In particular Barnard's star has the appearance of an irregular orange blob, rather than a star. Could this graphic be improved?
 * Thanks! &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made the intro changes. The pic looks a little rough because I did it myself in photoshop :). I'll try and tweak when I get a chance. Marskell 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: JMc placed a list of grammar & diction suggestions on my talk. It's quite massive, so I've placed it on the talk here to avoid putting people off if they want to stop by and comment. Don't want to divert attention at all. The list and my replies are all there. Marskell 10:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'd like to see material from 'Star_systems_in_fiction' discussed in the article instead of just linked in see also.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here, I respectfully disagree. I think it's enough to link to this info in See Also. I realize "The Hitchhiker's Guide..." and others have mentioned Barnard's Star, but I think this page should be about the star as it is, mentioning all of the points that are effectively "timeless". I will have no objection if someone drafts a three or four sentence section re "In Fiction", but I don't think the absence of such should be held against the article. "In Fiction" is momentary. The numbers have an "absolute" importance, and the planet controversy is, if nothing else, an interesting "history of science" narrative that should make for intereseting reading ten or a hundred years from now; something like "Star Trek mentions it as a refuelling stop for the Enterprise" is just trivia, by contrast. Marskell 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Marskell. I did some reading on Barnard's Star in fiction, and most of it is trivia. If it served a monumental importance to a story, then maybe. But right now, all that is on that page is trivia. There isn't enough to write any text without it seeming like a poorly put together paragraph made out of a trivia section (which it would be).--   &#162;&#178;   Connor K.    00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * support -Pedro 11:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)