Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corvus (constellation)/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) 21:46, 18 February 2017.

Corvus (constellation)

 * Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about yet another constellation. I'd say it is the equal of the other FAs. Come assess and I will answer promptly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim
From jay to raven…. All looks pretty good. I did wonder about the raven link, but the Greeks and Babylonians may well have known different species, so raven probably OK
 * Your Coronis link gives a choice of several, can you be more precise?
 * The main one on the target page is linked to Apollo there, so I thought it was self-evident. Added an epithet to make sure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You have two different redirects to Apollo, what's wrong with the direct route?
 * Maybe an old link before the target was moved. Rejigged now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

TV Corvi
Not sure how important this is, but the article says TV Corvi has a baseline mag. of 17, rising to 12, but the page for TV Corvi says "...reaching magnitude 13.5 in these outbursts and remaining at magnitude 19 when quiet."VirtualDave (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've updated the TV Corvi page with visual magnitude ranges from the original discovery paper (13.0 - 19.5, give or take a little) and from the latest AAVSO data as published on the VSX page (12.2 - 19.5). Either or both of these ranges would be suitable to go on the constellation page. Not sure where the values on there now came from. Beware of photographic or blue magnitudes which are smaller (brighter) because the white dwarf and its accretion disk are hot blue objects. Lithopsian (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Support: I revised what I thought were some little nits, but otherwise I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Good job! Praemonitus (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: I'm recusing as coordinator for this one. These articles are always a good read but this one was particularly enjoyable as it has a rather interesting history. I've done some light copy-editing (which can be safely reverted if I've messed up) and have some little nit-picks but nothing major and nothing to prevent my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "It was similarly placed sitting on the tail of the Serpent (Greek Hydra).": Not quite sure what we are saying this is similar to.
 * I have tried to clarify thus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "John H. Rogers suggests that Corvus and Crater marked the gate to the Underworld": Why? I think this is worth expanding a touch.
 * expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "These two constellations, along with the eagle Aquila and the fish Piscis Austrinus, were introduced to the Greeks around 500 BCE": Is it worth saying how? Or perhaps via who?
 * expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "where the Cup is barely out of reach": Barely is undoubtedly correct here, but it makes it sound like it was just within his reach to me. Maybe it's just me. Would "just" work? Not a big deal either way, just a preference thing I suspect.
 * Rejigged to "just" now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "To the Tupi people of São Luís Island in Brazil, Corvus was seen as a grill or barbecue—seychouioura, on which fish were grilled. However, the depiction could have also referred to the Great Square of Pegasus.": The certainty of the first sentence is rather shattered by the second! Maybe stick a "might have been" into the first sentence?
 * tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Corvus ranks 70th of the 88 constellations in area": I may have asked this before, and sorry if I have, but ranks in terms of...? Area I assume, but it could be on lists of favourite constellations!
 * Err....in area (i.e. size)? I thought that was obvious and would be duplicative to add in "largest" somewhere.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, not a big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * One star "ended up in Corvus": When? I assume it was reallocated rather than moved, so perhaps we need something other than "ended up"!
 * tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do we have a link for spectral type?
 * linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "which was once mistaken for a moon of Mercury": Any more details on this? It sounds an interesting mistake.
 * expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Meteor showers": I can't remember if I've ever asked this before, but is it worth explaining (in case it is confusing to the lay reader) that the meteor showers are not a feature of the constellation but originate from that part of the sky? Possibly not, so no big deal.
 * Does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm never a fan of popular culture sections, and would argue that this one could be cut with no great loss, but I'd imagine that these occurrences are fairly rare for constellations so I suppose this one is a rare exception. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * awww...I thought this bit was really cool.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've got to admit, this is one of the few popular culture sections that is worth including, so I'm happy enough for it to stay. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping me if this doesn't get a source review in a few days and I'll do that as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ok all done now.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Image check - all OK
 * Images are Public Domain or Creative Commons - OK.
 * Sufficient source and author information (tweaked a PD tag and tiny MOS issues) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Prose is good so here is a source review:
 * Link for Journal of the British Astronomical Association exists so it will prove useful to link it. The same should apply to other references' publishers.
 * linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * FN 5 needs additional information like publisher, date, accessdate etc.
 * expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * FN8 seems like a book so there might be ISBN number (or whatever it is called) for it.
 * the book was published in 1941, which predates the 1966 establishment of isbns.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * FN9 - ditto (I don't know if it is a required thing or just encouraged).
 * the book was published in 1912, which predates the 1966 establishment of isbns.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe once linking Ian Ridapth is enough. You might not need to repeat the link. Also, it should be linked on first instance i.e. ref 6.
 * adjusted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is New York written twice in a few references. Is it perhaps to mean that one is the city and the other is the state? If so, it should be New York City.
 * its written New York, New York whenever I have seen it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are you so picky when it comes to accessdates? I understand that we do not need it when it is a book source but does it apply to references of other certain kinds, too? For instance, is ref 75 a source that is exempt from having an access date?
 * my bad - I interpreted it as a journal (which doesn't need one), but if interpreted as webpage, then it does. So added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * abc news website should read ABC News with a wiki-link in FN#76. Also, ABC News Internet Ventures can go since cite web states, "Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work". – FrB.TG (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes
 * Hi Cas, I spotchecked the infobox, and the nearest star (Ross 695) doesn't seem to be mentioned/cited in the main body -- I'd expect it to be referenced in one place or the other; would you mind double-checking for any similar instances?
 * will look into this tomorrow - need to sleep now added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a few duplinks that may not be necessary in an article of this size (incl. two repetitions of binary star in the one para) -- could you pls check and remove where feasible?
 * got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Tks Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.