Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canis Major/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 23:49, 7 August 2014.

Canis Major

 * Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to work up bigger constellations without the prose coming across as too listy - this article came together quite well I thought. Home of the brightest star in the sky and a bunch of interesting things. Have a read, tell me what I can fix and enjoy (hopefully) Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero
First, the image review. File:Canis Major IAU.svg comes from a site with an appropiate license, but it still contains a pair of logos at the bottom right. Their copyright section clearly said that their logo is not freely licensed, and so it must be removed from the image (watermarks are usually removed anyway). Besides, it may be better if the "source" was not just a raw link that simply reads "[1]". File:CMa setting.jpg has a "summary" section that repeats the content of the description, remove it. And what about removing the lower portion of the photo, so that we see just the sky and not the portion of the plane's window? (there's also the plane wing, but I don't think we can do anything about that). File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Canis Major, Lepus, Columba Noachi & Cela Sculptoris.jpg is a featured image, and I don't see any problem with it. File:CanisMajorCC.jpg comes from a site with a copyright notice, but the author uses the same name both there and in Commons. Perhaps you should send a mail to the author (in his page) to ask him to confirm that the user in Commons is also him, and that he's aware that he's re-licensing the photos by uploading them here. File:Stars fleeing a cosmic crash.jpg seems fine --Cambalachero (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed duplicate material. I would think leaving some reference point is good, depends what one sees as the interesting part of the image. If you crop it so it is just sky, then it is just a blurry picture of the constellation. Actually the more i think about it, it really doesn't add to the article except in an amusing and possibly noncyclopedic manner, so I will remove it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Would the logo not be part of attribution? This is the copyright notice on the original site, and this is (presumably) the version they are happy with being reproduced, given it is on the website....all 88 constellations have this image..... will redo the source source rewritten. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support and comments from Jim Usual high quality, Cas, just a couple of minor points you might take a look at Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * KAK.SI.DI, BAN, MULAPIN&mdash; Why are the Babylonian words fully capped? I can hardly bring myself to write this, but is it consistent with MoS for capitalisation?
 * it's consensus on how the words are transcribed from Babylonian. We discussed this somewhere before - can't recall where. Will have a look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternate names&mdash; too American for my tastes, "alternative" is meant, the names don't alternate
 * changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * beat him up&mdash;too informal, even for Oz
 * changed to "assaulted" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * polygon of 4 sides. &mdash; spell out "four", or better still replace the phrase with the equivalent but more concise "quadrilateral". As written, it's like using "polygon of three sides" in preference to "triangle"
 * changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth
It reads well, but really I am too unfamiliar with the astronomical depth of the article to be able to comment properly. A few points on the prose:
 * thanks for the input - making it as accessible as possible to lay-readers is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "In non-western astronomy" - Are Arab astronomers and Tunisian shepherds considered to be "western"?
 * in a very broad sense, this is part of the classical/western lore yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Wild Cockerel (Yějī 野雞) was at the centre of the Military Market and its stars were uncertain." - needs some clarification of what the second part means.
 * have tried to clarify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Southeast of the Wolf was the asterism Húshǐ (弧矢), the celestial Bow and Arrow, ..." - This sentence is too long and complex.
 * split now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "To the Boorong people of Victoria, Sigma Canis Majoris was Unurgunite, and its flanking stars Delta and Epsilon his two wives." - I would add "were" to the last part of this.
 * added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You mention that Lepus is "the hare" but not that Columba is "the dove".
 * tricky this - as Columba only mentioned in map/boundaries but, not mythology - would seem odd to mention it there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Sirius is also a binary star; its companion is called Sirius B, which has a magnitude of 8.4" - What is the magnitude of Sirius A then? Perhaps that's a silly question but this paragraph describes Sirius as a star and then states it is in fact two stars.
 * Sirius B is 10,000 times fainter, the -1.46 magnitude at the beginning is the magnitude of Sirius A to all intents and purposes. I have added the bit to make it clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "... is another star that has been classified Beta Cephei variable, ..." - I would insert "as a" in this sentence.
 * added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "... is now undergoing nuclear fusion of helium to generate energy." - The use of the active rather than the passive tense here makes it sounds as if the star has a purpose!
 * removed as redundant anyway... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "At the other extreme is ..." - At the other extreme from What?
 * in size - preceding segment is about one of the largest stars known...to then talk about one 5 km in diameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "However the fainter star is the more massive at 19 Solar masses ..." - "Solar mass" is lowercase elsewhere in the article.
 * tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "... yellow and orange stars and covers an area the size of the full Moon ..." - Perhaps use the word "apparent size".
 * added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "On the other hand, a globular cluster in Puppis, NGC 2298 ..... and instead be of extragalactic origin." - The verb form is wrong at the end of this sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am happy with the alterations you have made and now support on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for the look-over and suggestions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Victoriaearle
Hi, Cas - almost total layperson here, without a bit of knowledge! It'll take me a while to read through (frankly haven't a clue what I'm reading) but a couple of questions:
 * input from laypeople is essential to make the damn thing as readable as possible :) - your copyedits were fine, just had to revert to "3 Canis Majoris", which is a Flamsteed designation . cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "History and mythology" (which is an interesting read) is followed by "In non-western astronomy". I'd think the second section is also history & mythology? I came away unsure whether the Chinese, Maori and Tharumba still believe these myths and thought you might want to consider retitling the sections along the lines of "History & Mythology" with subsections for western and non-western.
 * not sure how that happened - was supposed to be a level under "History & Mythology" - tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Stars" - Section is a lot of gray space and is very stuffed. Maybe move the pic down to break it up?
 * down...you mean up? we talking about the nonwestern segment...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops - sorry, ran out of steam, changed my mind about something and deleted a point. I meant the "Stars" section. I'm skimmed it, but need to read it through more closely. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * aaah ok. I am looking for some more images but tricky Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that's as far as I've gotten, but interesting reading. In my part of the world I know it as the winter dog star. Pls ping to remind me if I don't get back to this soon. Oh and made a few tweaks - feel free to revert. Victoria (tk) 01:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'll bring back the comment I deleted last night: in the "Stars" section, for the lay-reader, might be better to move from general to specific. 2nd para seems to be a readable general para; maybe lead the section with that para? That gives the reader a chance to dip in, or out, in the specific description of each star coming after.
 * Ok, I have flipped the first two paras and agree the new first para is a much easier intro...my only concern is does it feel like the subject matter is jumping back and forth at all (Sirius to naming to Sirius...?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, agree and the reason I've been waffling about that point. But I think it reads well as the first para and I think it's probably okay with the rationale that readers generally don't read from top to bottom but dip in here and there. In that sense it sets up the next section fairly well, imo. Still, it is a bit tricky. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble discerning the pattern in presentation of the 20 stars (i.e, brightest stars, biggest stars, location, alphabetical by name/label). Stupid question, but is there a convention in astronomy, or does it matter how they're presented? If it doesn't matter, to pull the lay-reader through, might not be a bad idea to set up topic sentences and clump together stars that share characteristics, or alternatively present them in as they're positioned on the dog (which is there in a few instances). Please ignore this, if not feasible or if uninformed.
 * no no, it's a valid question - this is really tricky and can differ from article to article depending on the source material. General principle is to move from brightest stars onwards, but it is hard to avoid listiness, so will try to groups stars with similar facts together (double stars, variable stars etc.) - and then fainter stars (generally only visible thru telescopes) that are often quite unusual toward the end, as well as grouping stars with planets. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read through again and decided it's not all that important of a point. Prosifying material that's sometimes better presented in lists is really challenging and I'm seriously impressed at the amount of information stuffed into the section. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 5th para: this sentence > "Its traditional name means "the virgins" >> seems to refer to Epsilon Canis Majoris (Adhara), but the first sentence in the para says "Epsilon, Omicron2, Delta and Eta Canis Majoris were called Al Adzari "the virgins" ". That's a little confusing.
 * the collective name ended up as the traditional name for the brightest star. Will see if I can find a ref for the change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, that makes sense. If the sources allow, maybe something like "Epsilon, Omicron2, Delta and Eta Canis Majoris were called Al Adzari "the virgins" in medieval Arabic tradition – a term now used for Eta Canis Majoris only." Something like that? Not a big deal, really, to be honest. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * added a note now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What's a "B2Iab"? (totally lost me there!)
 * It is a blue white supergiant of spectral type Iab...have already linked to spectral type once; supergiant star  now linked at first instance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Stars" section describes individual stars and star systems. Can these be broken out into two separate sections for readability or do they need to be together? Again, haven't a clue, so ignore if uninformed. Victoria (tk) 00:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We talk of stars as single points, but half are binary star systems (any multiple star is a star system), and then you have stars with planets. Trying to be as accurate as possible but keep it readable. This is one for following links. Not quite sure how to make it clearer - but they sorta need to be together... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On a second read, I think it's okay as is. I was just trying to think of ways of breaking the section up into subjections for lay readers, but that would have its own pitfalls.


 * I've read to the bottom now and no questions/comments about "Deep-sky objects"
 * Support - nicely written, tons of information (comprehensive!), and I came away learning a lot! Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * much appreciated/thanks for helping me make it more accessible to layfolks... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Some duplicate links: Zeus, Canis Major, Canis Minor, Puppis, Lepus, 13 Canis Majoris, Omicron2, Delta Canis Majoris, Sigma Canis Majoris, Eta Canis Majoris, Pi Canis Majoris, Nu2 Canis Majoris, open cluster.
 * Almost all removed - Nu2 Canis Majoris is linked almost at opposit ends of the article and the second is more relevant in some ways, so left that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ESO 489-056 has an image, but is not mentioned in the text anywhere?
 * added a bit - questionable whether it's notable though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Do we need the See Also? Could it be linked in the In non-western astronomy section?
 * removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Consider adding the Star portal and Astronomy portal links
 * Does Sky Pub really need a link?
 * It does have a nice interactive map with galaxies that we can't do, so does add something over and above what we have. Not hugely fussed though.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

All in all I think it's a great article that makes engaging reading from what have been a list of stars. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources review
 * All external links are working
 * Ref 11 self-published – what makes it reliable?
 * The author is Ian Ridpath  - he's adapted material from his book to his (self-published) website Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 82: what is the meaning of the bracketed "in delaet 11" within the ref?
 * strange - it was in the "language" field...must have been a cut and paste gone awry Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 90 lacks page references
 * page number added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 94: Is it necessary to list all of the 30-odd names of the joint authors? The purpose of the citation is to identify the source, not to credit the authors exhaustively. A judicious "and others" would surely suffice.
 * oops, that was a bot doubling the names through a glitch - tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Consistency is required in showing publisher locations for cited texts.
 * oops, dunno what happened there..added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The list of cited texts should be alphabetical.
 * oops, dunno what happened there...duly alphabetized Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, of appropriate quality and properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All sources issues fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.