Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horologium (constellation)/archive1

Horologium (constellation)

 * Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a constellation - so far I have been more or less involved in most of the 32 current featured articles on constellations. This one got a good going-over in GAN and I am throwing it up here for reviews. I will respond pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Fowler&fowler
I'm still comatose from the Christmas feast, so I can't vouch I'll be wholly cogent, but I'm troubled by this submission, by its length, or the lack thereof, but more by the lack of narrative, the kind of narrative that transmutes data in the form of lists into heuristic explanations which aid our understanding. I'd like to clarify a few things in the first three sentences of the lead first.
 * I agree about the lack of narrative - problem is creating overarching sentences where no sources have them veers into OR...which is also a problem. Happy for input on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see that there already is a long line of similar articles, even about Lacaille's constellations, which are FAs.  So there's precedent. ( I'll have to mull this over more.  My worry is (and this might not be the best place to air it): there are hundreds of topics, for example, in math, physics, chemistry, ...  One could narrow down a topic to a constituent that is a near-indivisible thematically, then write something that is comprehensive.  It might not have any narrative. What do we do with such an article? ) Still, I think there has to be more content that we can use, especially in the history section.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sentence 1: Horologium is a faint constellation in the southern celestial hemisphere, one of twelve described in the 18th century by French astronomer Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille.
 * A constellation is an imagined conspicuous configuration. How does the imaginer other than an ancient Greek become part of the non-restrictive appositive?
 * Most of the more recent ones are faint as they are from left-over stars that the ancients didn't visualise into patterns. Constellations now are polygonal tracts of sky as well. Shall I take the "faint" out? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so much the faint that I was objecting to here, as the comma that creates an appositive.  Can we say rephrase the first two sentences as: "Horologium (Latin hōrologium, from Greek ὡρολόγιον, lit. an instrument for telling the hour) is a constellation of seven faintly visible stars in the southern celestial hemisphere that was first described by the French astronomer Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille in 1752 and visualized by him as a "clock with a pendulum and a seconds hand."  In 1922 the constellation was redefined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as a region of the celestial sphere, and has since been an IAU designated constellation."?
 * Aha, ok. Yes that was worded very well and I will take you up on that offer. I had no idea about appositives until yesterday either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, adopted. (or anyone else) you wouldn't have a page ref for the OED would you? I have an OED with the magnifying glass thingy but we are rearranging rooms and I think it is under a pile of books somewhere and can't immediately locate it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is: (subscription required).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * :) I know all about the pile of books.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What is a faint constellation? Does it mean that the least luminous star is faintly visible to the unaided human eye or that in the crowded night sky the configuration itself can be made out with a low (but positive) success rate by the human visual perception apparatus? If it is the former, then what is its value?  If it is the latter, then what psycho-physics experiment measures it?
 * It means that its brightest stars are pretty faint, unlike (say) Orion, Ursa Major or Crux Australis. Its pattern to the unaided eye is pretty indistinct (like many of the more recent constellations). Astronomy guidebooks often call constellations like this (like Mensa, Octans, etc.) "faint" as a quasi-shorthand. So sort of the latter - it just highlights to a lay-reader that is a faint rather than distinctive pattern. For more detail, we have the Bortle scale - I have touched on it in a footnote but not linked as such. Constellations simultaneously have two meanings to the lay-observer - the pattern of their brightest stars, but more comprehensively, a polygonal area covering a piece of sky and all the items thereis as a sort of "address." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sentence 2: It is one of the eighty-eight modern constellations designated by the International Astronomical Union.
 * This sentence makes no effort to explain why there are only 88 "modern" constellations, and why, for example, a post-modern teenager with killer eyesight will not find the 89th. (I.e. even if the 88 constellations subdivide the celestial sphere into polygons whose sides are parallel to the spherical coordinate axes, there is no guarantee that this teenager will not find a finer subdivision.)
 * The whole sky was mapped out into 88 constellations in 1922. It seems a bit off-topic to for discussion on that to be raised here. I did look to see if any planets were described as "one of the Solar System's eight planet" (but they aren't). Would it be better then to just omit the 88, as the main thrust is that the reader understands that this is a currently recognised constellation (not like one of the many that is no longer recognised) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The constellation is wholly visible to observers south of 23°N.
 * The southernmost star in the constellation of de Lacaille is β Horologii which is visible below 24 N. So, obviously we are talking here about a polygonal definition of constellations.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, I guess feasibly if Northern Hemisphere observer with a telescope was desperately keen to see something on the constellation's southernmost limits being the point... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand.  Let me think about a rephrase. Sorry, I made a mistake; Beta-Horologium is visible below 26 N.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the diagram on the left will be useful in the Characteristics section. Without it, or something similar, the notion that the constellation is wholly visible below latitude 23 N might not be clear to many readers. (Or maybe it is, and I'm just underestimating their geometry skills.) It will have to be redrawn by one of the graphics people, though. Also, in that case, you might want to insert the last two sentences beginning, "The official constellation boundaries ..." after the first sentence. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PS declension = declination; it has secondary meaning in grammar, that most people know. So, perhaps, best to use only declination.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the stats in at the bottom of the Characteristics section and figured that the numbers themselves help explain things satisfactorily. I've not been asked in previous constellation nominations. Pondering whether diagram might be good in constellation article somehow so it doesn't get repeated 88 time...(???) Maybe just leaving the phrase out of the lead altogether? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No leaving the phrase out is not a good idea, as it aids comprehension. Does it aid it sufficiently at the level of lay knowledge?  This is a tricky call.  My own opinion is that it does not.  We are really talking about a 3-dimensional reality.  We are saying the tangent plane (i.e. the horizon) at any point of latitude less 22.96 (approx. 23 N) intersects the volume between two downward-pointing cones of apex angles (90 - 39.63) and (90 - 67.04) transversally.  "Transversally" means intersecting both the inner and outer surfaces. This, of course, it too complicated an explanation.  Here is one resolution: Change the sentence to: "This region on the celestial sphere is wholly visible to observers at any location below 22.96 degrees N latitude."   22.96 instead of 23 will give the reader a clue to make a connection with -67.04, as 22.96 is 90 - 67.04. I will make some tweaks in the lead directly in the interest of moving this forward.  Sorry this is taking time :(  If you don't like them, please revert.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My problem here is that the source has rounded to the nearest degree... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * :) I forgot the cardinal principle.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Update - I made a collapsible box to contain the diagram - can be seen on this version. Have reverted for now as I cannot get it to align on the left of the goddamn page and just sits in the centre jarring the whole thing. No-one has asked for something like this before, and am thinking it would be great on a more dynamic wiki that a hover would get it to appear. The collapisble box is the next best thing (I think). Anyway, have RL chores to do and will ask about how to left-align the collapsible box... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The dynamic wiki would really aid comprehension. The footnote is fine too.  I will try to make a more accurae diagram.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made a more accurate picture. It may take some time to show in the diagram. Also, as there already is precedent for constellations, so my objection to the short length doesn't belong here.  I have changed my vote to Partial support, changeable to full support once some other changes are implemented.  If you don't like the new picture, feel free to revert it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - wrestled with a collapsing box for a bit but there is no way to left-align it nicely and it has been pointed out to me that their use is discouraged as per MOS. I guess it has got me thinknig about a more dynamic interface but that is a discussion for another place and time. Newer diagram looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've changed my vote to a full Support. I haven't been able to read the later sections, but I managed to learn a thing or two; in particular, the definitions of ascension, which had been bugging me until I realized it is defined with respect to the sun's longitudinal plane, i.e. longitude where the sun is overhead. I've also learned something new about constellations, especially those of the southern celestial hemisphere, and the stars alpha-, beta-, and R-Horologium, and their value for astronomers both professional and amateur. This was fun for me. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks muchly,, these articles really benefit from some prose polish.....any spare time for a neophytic look at Rigel I would be insanely grateul for, even just the lead... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming back home a little while ago, I happened to look up at the night sky, and lo and behold, there was Orion, of old, of my middle-school days, of when our dad and us would lie down on our backs with a fluorescent star atlas and count the constellations, the same Orion of Rigel and Betelguese, of the belt pointing to Sirius. My eyes are weaker, so Rigel was less blue and Betelguese less red, but they are all still there.  Maybe I will look at the virtual Rigel.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * Consider adding alt text.
 * added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass
The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

SC

 * Lead
 * "a seconds hand": I was thrown by the s until I checked the OED (it prefers second, but also allows seconds); the OED does, however, hyphenate. I couldn't see what variant of English is used, but it may be worth checking.
 * Wow, I'd never given that much thought. My natural instinct is to use "seconds hand" rather than "second hand". The latter reminds me of second-hand bookshops. Also, if with 's' then hyphen looks really odd inserted there...? I need to think about this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was slightly surprised by the hyphen too, FWIW. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * History
 * Ditto on the hyphen
 * see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Characteristics
 * Water snake is a disambig page
 * This is tricky - we discussed this at the GAN. It has some rudimentary information so isn't as strictly DAB as some others. There is no way of determining which water snake is meant by the Ancient Greeks as no source discusses it. Only alternative is to leave unlinked (if we think that is an improvement) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's OK, if there is some basic information for people, then this should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a large area of white space on my monitor. Given the length of the IB there is also some sandwiching, but I'm not sure there is a way round it.
 * Is there a reason 'Hor' is in single quotes, rather than double?
 * Err, no. And I just realised other people have double quotes and I have perpetuated single quotes through a bunch of constellations, which I am have now fixing fixed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought we were supposed to include indications about images in the text "(illustrated in infobox)"? (I can't find the guideline, so I'm not 100% sure if that's still current)
 * You mean "not include"? Is already in - this was the result of an FAC of another constellation where a reviewer said it'd be helpful (and I agreed) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops - yes, not include. The info is at MOS:SEEIMAGE - it's a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule, but there is a rationale for not using directions. I'll leave it to your discretion as to what to do, and it won't affect my support. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok so the guideline says "Don't refer to images as being to the left/right, above/below, etc. because image placement varies with platform (especially mobile platforms) and screen size, and is meaningless to people using screen readers." - this is fair enough. In this case, the text refers to the image in the infobox, which is in a fixed position at the top right of the article regardless of screen size or platform. I think leaving the parenthetical text s more useful in than not in the article as the description is hard to visualise and the image is in a distant part fo the article, hence a pointer is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Stars
 * You have some descriptions that use the definite article, and some without ("English astronomer Francis Baily" and "American astronomer Benjamin Apthorp Gould", but "The German astronomer Johann Elert Bode".
 * removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Refs
 * You have a few page ranges that are in the 343–57 scale; the MoS now suggests the 343–357 format, but I'll leave that to your discretion as to whether to ignore or implement.
 * I previously used 2-digit spans everywhere but lost where I orignally read that, and someone else told me to use the whole range... fixing in a moment.. tweaked now to all digits Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope these help, Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The important points in my review have been dealt with; the others are more matters of my personal taste than anything to stop a support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thx ! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Laser brain

 * "He devised fourteen new constellations in previously uncharted regions of the southern celestial hemisphere, which were not visible from Europe." This statement is unclear to me. Is "devising" a constellation the same as naming one? Or do they decide which stars will be grouped into a constellation and thus "devise" it?
 * the newer ones are pretty obscure and their patterns are probably most diplomatically described as subjective. Hence people like Lacaille did their best to visualise patterns and then set out/demarcate constellations, so is more than just naming if that helps....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Horologium also has several variable stars." I find this needs linking or context here. Even having read the lead, I didn't remember that your link to "Mira variable" means the same thing as here.
 * A variable star is any star that varies in brightness for any reason. I've linked it now. Tempted to write "stars that vary in brightness" but then we end up with an easter egg link....A Mira variable is a very specific kind of variable star. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That's it from me. Overall a very good read. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Praemonitus
I made a few small changes, but otherwise it seems up to snuff FA-wise. Praemonitus (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * edits look fine, thx for support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)