Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leo Minor/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 20:23, 19 November 2012.

Leo Minor

 * Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am feeling more comfortable with constellation articles now - this is my third one and I think it is either of, or within striking distance of, featured article status. Let me know what to fix (it's a short article!) and I'll get cracking. It got a good GA review. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  Leaning support (GA reviewer)
 * Checked images during my GA review, they're fine.
 * Footnotes for Delta Scuti and the Delta Scuti variables, as well as Nogami & Masuda 1997, don't point anywhere. Nogami could use page numbers too.
 * dang, still getting my head around the sfn referencing system. Anyway, both refs fixed - Nogami is a journal so I've always just used the page ranges in the bottom ref rather than single out specific page (unlike books) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the changes since my review and they seem fine otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Supporting now that other reviewers' comments are addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial Comments - (Done) prose and grammar could use a bit more work (missing words, odd grammar, ...). Some initial comments regarding the content (more to come):
 * Is it possible to get 21 and 46 Leonis Minor marked on the infobox map like Beta? It would help casual readers to connect image and text, when atleast the main stars are labelled (not strictly required, just nice to have).
 * I've made a map here  but am just figuring out how to tweak the constellation infobox... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a template issue. At first check it looks like the template enforces constellation name + " IAU.svg" as image filename and accepts nothing else. The variable image-parameter is filled with a predefined fix filename (...). You would have to ask the template editors to "open" that parameter for a more flexible input. GermanJoe (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The sub-article for 46 Leonis Minor has 95 ly distance instead of 98 (but is a very short stub). Please double-check.
 * SIMBAD is the latest consensus of these, so converted now (good catch...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Leo Minor is a dark area of the sky with a triangle of brighter stars just visible to the naked eye in good conditions.[13] Patrick Moore has described it as having "dubious claims to a separate identity".[14]" reads more like a general "characteristic". Suggest to merge this part somewhere into "Characteristics" and immediately start features with "Stars".
 * Rejigged. I like your suggestion as it livens up the Characteristics section which is otherwise a bit formulaic with a witty comment by Britain's most famous astronomer :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Add distance to Beta (you already note distances to 21 and 46).
 * added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The [mysterious] deep sky object ..." - remove subjective term, add 1-2 very brief facts about the background of it's research.
 * Subjective term removed. Just thinking what to add got some stuff....it is unique - there is nothing like it, so "unique" is an objective and succinct qualifier. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Arp 107 is a pair of galaxies in the process of merging, located some 450 million light years away.[52] NGC 3395 and NGC 3396 are a spiral and irregular barred spiral galaxy respectively that are interacting, located 1.33 degrees southwest of Praecipua.[53]" => Are the 2 sentences describing 2 different pairs of galaxies? Reading the actual text, the second sentence could be misunderstood as further details of the first pair.
 * added "At least two pairs of interacting galaxies have been observed." to the front. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Incomplete caption sentences => no periods.
 * caption periods removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest another complete readthrough for awkward phrasing, flow and minor grammar issues. GermanJoe (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've massaged the prose a little....but is tricky when one has stared at it so many times...how do you feel about it now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "German astronomer Christian Ludwig Ideler posited that the stars of Leo Minor had been termed Al Thibā' wa-Aulāduhā, "Gazelle with her Young" on the Borgian globe, however Lach held that they had been Al Haud "the Pond", which the Gazelle jumps into." ==> "Borgian globe" and "Lach" need a bit more detail for the uninitiated. GermanJoe (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * added some material on the globe, but Lach is bafflingly elusive....Allen doesn't explain who he was anywhere (!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After some googling in the wrong direction i found him: "Lach" is probably Friedrich W. Lach, who wrote "Anleitung zur Kenntniß der Sternnahmen mit Erläuterungen aus der Arabischen Sprache und Sternkunde.", published 1796, by Weidmann, Leipzig (Germany) (see this link for a bit of German info []. GermanJoe (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some more info: Friedrich W. Lach was an Arabist, who translated the "Anleitung zur Kenntniß der Sternnahmen" from an original Arabic work (according to this short biographical link []. GermanJoe (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course! I should have figured he'd be an Arabic translator - I was trying his surname plus astronomy and getting nowhere. good find! Now to do some reading...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Support I checked my databases for more information, but came up empty-handed, so I'm confident that criteria 1b and 1c are met; meets other FAC criteria too. Sasata (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)  Comments  by Sasata (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * links: magnitude, orange giant, light year
 * linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * shouldn't the lead say how many stars are in the constellation?
 * added star total to lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Ptolemy classified the stars in this area as άμὸρφωτοι (not belonging to a constellation outline) of the constellation of Leo." Are the Greek letters necessary? I'm not sure why this is useful.
 * I like greek letters, but latinised it now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Johannes Hevelius set about filling parts of the northern celestial hemisphere as he mapped the heavens," Filling it with what?
 * constellations - rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Richard A. Proctor gave the constellation the name Leaena" Should Leaena be italicized, either as a non-English name or as word-as-word?
 * pondered that - done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Borgian globe -> I'm guessing this doesn't have to do with the Borg (Star Trek)?
 * Ultimately it is to do with Stefano Borgia  who founded the Borgia Museum. Details online are scant, and I am ferreting out what I can to add added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Who is Lach?
 * aargh, I can't find anything.! Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * link Chinese astronomy, parsec, luminosity, giant star, period, arcminute
 * I couldn't find a good place to link "period" so linked "pulsating" instead Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * should light-years be hyphenated?
 * It can be written with or without a hyphen. I've generally not used one, and the convert template spits it out unhyphenned. A bigger MOS issue worth getting consensus on at some point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "pulsating stars which have been used" which->that (check article for several other occurrences which that should be switched)
 * Ahaaa, I think "which" is correct. The whole class (delta scuti variables_ can be used like this, hence "class of pulsating variables, which..." is correct - if OTOH we say it is only "pulsating variables", then it is only a subset of those, which would be "that".....I am leaning towards "which" as I figure taking it with "class of.." has alraedy sub-defined it Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Which" may well be preferable, but it's generally preceded by a comma (as you've done in most other instances). The other time you use "which" without a comma is "It consists of a white dwarf and a donor star which orbit each other..." -- again, I think you can leave the "which" here but you should insert a comma beforehand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, that's more correct than what I said. Sasata (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "20 Leonis Minoris is a multiple star system only 49 light-years (15 parsecs) away from the Sun." Is the use of "only" to convince us that 49 ly is a short distance?
 * It's pretty close and closer than other stars in the constellation, but not egregiously so. I've removed the "only" anyway now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "400 million year old star" needs hyphens
 * duly hyphenated Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * inconsistent use of title/sentence case in journal article titles
 * I think I got them all now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * double period in Hevelius 1687 source
 * fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * inconsistent isbn hyphenation
 * isbns spaced now Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * does Jenniskens needs page #'s?
 * got pages in wrong spot. fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * some book sources give publisher locations, others don't
 * locations all there now Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "FeII/FeI" needs subscripting
 * I spaced it but not subscripted it. The 'III' or 'II' in metals is not subscripted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * full page range for Russell 1922? Wagner 1998? Others?
 * It's funny that the practice in astronomy papers is often just to give the first page. Fixed now. The supernova mentions are just a few lines hence single pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * issue # for Skiff 1986?
 * Got it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * endashes for page ranges
 * auto fix should have got them all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * why are you using sfn-style referencing for this article? Here it doesn't seem to provide any real benefit, but instead bloats the references by providing a redundant list of "citations" before the "Sources" (making the reader have to look twice for the citation). As far as I can see, the only advantage in this article is to distinguish between "Wagman 2003, pp. 189-90" and "Wagman 2003, p. 8.", but there are more efficient ways to do this. Also, Ridpath & Tirion 2001, pp. 168-69. looks to be the same as Ridpath & Tirion 2001, pp. 168-169.
 * B'rer Rabbit and Keilana have been using them. My last constellation FA nom got largely converted whil at FAC. I do find it easier for navigation while editing and I like the sfn coding to write, but I agree about the extra layer of complexity at the bottom. I'd rather not spend another hour or two of my life converting this one back but will not oppose anyone else doing so, and my next articles are the usual style. sigh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have better things to do with an hour too, so you don't have to worry about me changing it. I'll just note that it's unfortunately not possible to give a direct link in the short form citation with this template ... Sasata (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * this source says it culminates on midnight February 24, not 9 pm on May 24. It also claims that NGC 3432 has a magnitude of 11.7, rather than 11.2. Also, why give the size of the other two galaxies and not this one?
 * midnight culmination added - constellations rise and set earlier as the year goes on, so the results are congruent. There are some annoying disagreements between sources on some things. I'll figure out some consensus.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I think the O'meara book might have a misprint, as the NED page has 11.67, like the Thompson book. Changed now, dimensions added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

More comments - (Done):
 * infobox ==> should it be 3 main stars instead of 2 (21,46 and Beta)? The template documentation has "all designated stars connected by lines in the main pattern". (on a completely unrelated note: Corona Australis should have 5 main stars instead of 6, when applying this guideline).
 * The most objective standard I've seen in this constellation is identifying the three brighter than mag 4.5...and "triangle" is mentioned a few times...problem with "connected by lines" is so many damn variations on this for all these constellations :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (optional) infobox image improvement to label main stars (see above)
 * "There are 37 stars brighter than apparent magnitude 6.5, of which three are brighter than magnitude 4.5—these forming a rough triangle. " ==> This reads clunky. Having said that, i tried to rephrase it a few times and came up with nothing better - YMMV.
 * I concede I am not thrilled about this wording either...and any improvement would be gratefully accepted...but I can't think of one either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "With a period of approximately 215 seconds, and losing a second every 8.9 million years, the 400 million year-old star has been touted as the most stable celestial clock.[37]" ==> this needs a more formal rephrase (tout?), maybe even try a direct quote, if it's notable enough (the phrase should work well as quote). GermanJoe (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * touted --> proposed? Another alternative might be "put forward"? "suggested"? Not sure we need a direct quote.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments  by a non-astronomer - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are several duplicate wikilinks.
 * de-linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Deep-sky object" is a section heading but is not defined or wikilinked anywhere.
 * added a link and encapsulating sentence in body Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The following sentences are of awkward construction:


 * "Rapidly rotating, it is likely flattened in shape."
 * rejigged. Given the shape is speculative (though assured given the physics, but we can't see any more than a dot of light), I've dropped that bit from the lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "With spectral class K0III,[16] it has around 32 times the luminosity and is 8.5 times the size of our sun,[17] its orange colour evident when seen through binoculars."
 * I've aligned the facts of 46 Leonis Minoris a bit better so one sentence is colour and brightness, and the next about true luminosity, size and distance Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The secondary is a yellow-white main sequence star of spectral type F8 and separated by 11 seconds of arc."
 * rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The fact that the secondary star is brighter than expected indicates it is likely two stars very close together that are unable to be made out separately with current viewing technology."
 * I'm at a bit of a loss how to rephrase this sentence and am open to suggestions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "(Scientists suggest that) the secondary star's unexpected brightness indicates that it likely consists of two closely orbiting stars, which remain indifferentiable with current technology" - Or is that worse? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Essentially it is that spectrum corresponds with brightness on a scale....yeah that's possible. I am going to have a play with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How about something like "The fact that the secondary star is brighter than expected indicates it is likely to be very close to the primary star but current viewing technology is unable to resolve the pair." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, to clarify, what the source says is that the secondary is actually a pair of stars and they are unsplittable from each other (hence there are three stars overall) - we know this because the star is too bright for what its spectrum is and therefore has to be a pair of stars of the same spectrum Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This matter is clarified now. Changed my "Comments" to "Support" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The white dwarf sucks matter from the other star onto an accretion disc which is heated to between 6000 and 10000 K ..." - I think the bolded bit of this sentence implies that heat is coming from an external source.
 * good point, reworded to "heats up" Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Lying near the 650 million light year-distant spiral galaxy IC 2497, it is around the same size as the Milky Way,[55] though contains a 16,000 light year wide hole."
 * I've split this sentence, though the second segment is a trifle short... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from MarchOrDie
 * What's a "nearly flat triangle"?
 * One of the sources described the 3 brightest stars as forming a "flattened triangle", so I was trying to word something similar without paraphrasing...however, in various depictions, there are a variable number of lines connecting 3,4 or 5 stars, so I have ditched it from the lead as an unnecessary complication. It isn't a prominent pattern by any stretch of the imagination. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What's "a polygon of 16 segments"? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The constellation area is a 16 sided figure if you look at the constellation chart . Not sure if there is a clearer way of describing it. Casliber (talk · contribs)
 * Edge (geometry) is the better term then, but "sides" might be more intelligible to a general audience. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 16 sides? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaah, ok. I agree with this. I was a bit mystified but I get it now, and done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is "Classical" capitalised? Our article on the era doesn't do this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed (wrongly) that it was caps - made lower case now Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we in British or American English in this article? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh I had to think about that one...British (as an aussie I write in British naturally, though I have a tendency to "-ize" words... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I understand that "ize" is perfectly acceptable in BritEng, but because so many equate it with AmEng, it's generally simpler for us Commonwealth folk to use "ise" and be done with it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was the combination of the Oxford spelling with "colour" that made me ask. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Got me thinking...but I can't see any US-spelt words around...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, and my mistake on the spelling issue. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No mistake and good to check..I realised I was spelling on auto-pilot :) thx for the review... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Support after another read and some minor copy-edits. Diff is. All noted issues have been adressed. GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, this was a tricky one to copyedit and make flow nicely. I really appreciate all the prose-massaging on this one Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and one comment  This has been thoroughly reviewed already, and I could only find one nitpick. I assume that you'll sort that out, so it would be churlish not to support now  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  It has around double the mass, 7.8 times the radius and is 36 times as luminous as the Earth's sun. &mdash; clunky and dubiously grammatical  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * changed it to 3 nouns rather than 2 nouns and adjective. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * 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) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)