Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rigel/archive1

Rigel

 * Nominator(s):, & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I felt bad that Betelgeuse got lots of love and attention and its buddy Rigel was ignored...so a few of us astronomical-interested editors have been buffing this article for some time. After a few pauses and deep breaths (and second looks and a productive GA review from The Rambling Man, which was great for accessibility....here we are. This is a co-nomination so queries should be responded to pronto. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Drive by comment: I wonder if it would be good to note that we have not found any planets orbiting these stars somewhere in the article? It's the first thing I looked for but could not find it. Mattximus (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A good question....very bright stars are difficult to investigate, so many have not been investigated in this way. We'd also need a source saying that someone had (unsuccessfully) tried I think. I'll have a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hard to find negative results like "no planets" getting published, even harder to find a scientific journal stating that nobody even looked around a particular star. At a guess, I'd say nobody has looked; there have been searches for spectroscopic companions, but finding a sub-stellar mass around a supergiant would be quite a feat.  I did find one web page explaining some of the reasons why Rigel is unlikely to have any planets and why they might be hard to spot if it did.  It would be a stretch to call it a reliable source.  We could use one of the public exoplanet databases, for example the NASA exoplanet archive can be searched and will tell you that there are no entries for Rigel.  Would obviously be a statement subject to change at any time in the future.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Opening confession: I know nothing about the topic; in fact, where I come from, it hasn't been invented yet :) In the references, you've got a number of books without publisher location. Also check book chapter for page spans, as anumber are also missing. Some journals are also missing identifiers (e.g. OCLC, doi etc) which are useful.Is there a citation for Rigel was also known as Gin-waki, (銀脇), etc?
 * That has been in article for many years unsourced - I could not find a source so removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "Jauzah" was a proper name of the Orion figure, an alternative Arabic name was رجل الجبار riǧl al-ǧabbār, "the foot of the great one" conveys much technical info; suggest a tweak. Perhaps, "Jauzah" was a proper name for Orion; an alternative Arabic name was رجل الجبار riǧl al-ǧabbār, or "the foot of the great one", from which stems the rarely used variants Algebar or Elgebar.I don't get With constellation representing...; should it be Within the constellation representing...? Also, maybe describe and link Orion on first use.much of our understanding about their characteristics; not sure about the first person—how about much of what scholars understand about their characteristics or something.ts energy output is poorly known--->can only be estimated.Mind you, I guess these can only really be suggestions on my part, as I may unintentionally be altering the substance by adjusting the prose. —— SN  54129  12:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All the prose changes you've suggested are good and have been used, though and pausing on the last one as everything with stars is estimated/calculated anyway. Need to think about that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote that about the representation here during the GA review, although I don't see anything in the review to prompt it. I wasn't entirely happy with it at the time, but I couldn't come up with anything better.  Maybe go back to the original version?  Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Some comments from Sam-2727:
 * supergiant primary component A of the Rigel system. Sounds kind of awkward. Is "the primary component of the Rigel system" not specific enough?
 * fair point, removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * then ordered the stars within each class according to a different scheme. Did his scheme vary from constellation to constellation? I assume this is the case, but it is never mentioned in the article.
 * yes - sometimes the order appears random, sometimes from one end of the constllation to the other (such as the Big Dipper). I thought it was too off-topic to go into more detail Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the exception is the area north of the 82nd parallel north. For clarification, could be "the exception being the part of the Arctic Ocean north of the 82nd parallel north.
 * err...and some of Greenland and Ellesmere Island..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair, but the rest of that sentence is only referring to oceans. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * source 25 doesn't support the claim that It is usually fainter than Capella. All the source says on this that I can find is that Capella "ever-so-slightly exceeds Rigel in brightness." I.e. there isn't a modifier (usually) in this statement.
 * fair point, qualifier removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The unusual Hα line profile is observed to vary unpredictably...rarely there is a pure emission Hα line. Does this really have to be one massive sentence? I would take out the colon (replacing it with a period), and split the rest up into sentences that flow better.
 * split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the Alpha Cygni class of variable stars, defined as.... Defined by who? Also, that quote isn't coming from the citation provided. I believe it's originally coming form the AAVSO:.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. The only thing is, the source currently in the article,, doesn't include that wording. So maybe change that source to the one you've provided. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Later comment: The source you provided also doesn't contain the words in that quote. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * yes it does - they are abbreviated to "ACYG" (sentence occurs in para after first hit of "ACYG" using cntrl- F Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'e' indicates that it displays emission lines in its spectrum, while the 'p'.... This assumes that these have already been mentioned in the article, but I can't find reference to these designations anywhere else.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rigel mass-loss rate due to stellar wind. Should be: "Rigel's mass-loss rate".
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is estimated that Rigel has lost around 3 solar masses (M☉) since beginning life as a star of 24±3 M☉ 7 to 9 million years ago. The citation given does give the original mass estimate, but doesn't mention Rigel losing 3 SM in its lifetime.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * However, the measurements for this object may be unreliable, possibly because it is a close double star. This and the proceeding sentence at the moment aren't exactly supported by the citation given which only mentions the general limitations with respect to binary stars, not in the case of Rigel's companion star (which isn't mentioned explicitly in the source anywhere).
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * or a distance of 39 light-years (12 parsecs) away. Again not supported by the current citation. I'm also skeptical how if the distance to Rigel is unknown, the distance from it to a nebula can be known so precisely.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I stopped at "Stellar System." Might have time to get through that tomorrow. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Continuing:


 * suspected Rigel B to be double "to be a binary system." It's just as easy to understand, and "double" sounds pretty colloquial, in my opinion. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)


 * Support I haven't had the time to go through the full article, but everything in the criteria seems to be addressed and only thing I'm finding in the comments above are ultra-minor copyediting changes (that no one will notice anyway...). Sam-2727 (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks! all input appreciated... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments from Hawkeye7
 * I'm not an astronomer, so perhaps not surprising that I found the Physical characteristics section confusing.
 * Yep - trying to balance accessibility and accuracy is a...challenge Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rigel is a blue supergiant that has exhausted the hydrogen fuel in its core First of all, the term "blue supergiant", linked here, is actually used in the first sentence of the section. Suggest moving this paragraph (and possibly the next) up to the beginning of the section.
 * Yes that is good - moving the para that describes /what/ it is up now done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In this section, "Rigel" refers to "Rigel A", right?
 * Yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Having exhausted the hydrogen fuel in its core, I take it that it this means that it its burning hydrogen in the outer shell? I'm guessing this because it says later that "Recent stellar evolution models suggest the pulsations are powered by nuclear reactions in a hydrogen-burning shell that is at least partially non-convective. The star may also be fusing helium in its core." (That sentence would be better placed here.) I deduce that this is because the pressure is not great enough for helium fusion, which requites much higher temperature than hydrogen fusion? Or it is that the core is too clogged with heavier elements?
 * I have moved that up so discussion of what elements are burning where are near each other Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When it was on the main sequence, its temperature would have been around 30,000 K This is the surface temperature, right?
 * yes/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider linking Ledoux criterion.
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider moving the footnotes in the infobox to after the units.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked you to consider it, and you did, so that it fine. Support promotion to featured status.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from HaEr48 (support)
Well written and referenced. Much of it can be understood with university-level knowledge plus some effort, so nicely done. I understand the difficulty of making articles like this accessible without dumbing down too much, so I try to focus my review on improving accessibility (in addition to other stuff). That said, I'm no expert so if my suggestions are way off feel free to push back.
 * Note, I intend to claim this review for Wikicup.
 * of spectral type B8Ia: any link for "spectral type" or "B8Ia"?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * of the first class: link or briefly explain what "first class" signifies in this sentence?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Rigel is a prominent equatorial navigation star: I think the passage that follows does a good job of explaining why it's a good navigational star, but not why it's an equatorial navigation star. Is it possible to explain more about what links it to the equator, e.g. "Rigel is a prominent equatorial navigation star because of its location in …, and because it is readily visible in all the world's oceans"?
 * I'm still wondering about this. Any idea? HaEr48 (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * the radial velocity of Rigel.. was seen to vary. Can we clarify, for the uninitiated, radial velocity with respect to what?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In 1933, the Hα spectral line was seen to be unusually weak and shifted 0.1 nm towards shorter wavelengths: Would it be appropriate to say "In 1933, the Hα spectral line of Rigel", for clarity?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In those spectral types, the 'e' indicates that it displays emission lines in its spectrum, while the 'p' means it has an unspecified spectral peculiarity.: Trying to understand these 'e' and 'p' reference, have the article mentioned them before?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, I think it's easy to miss because it reads like a combination of two names "Bep" and "Aepla" and the individual characters aren't meaningful. Suggest bolding the relevant characters, e.g. "The 'e' and 'p' in Bep–AepIa indicate ..."
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "mass loss" is stellar mass loss a good link for context? Also, link: nebulosity,
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The 2007 Hipparcos reduction of Rigel's parallax: link reduction (or explain what it means in this context) and parallax? And better yet if there's a link that explains how the parallax can be used to estimate distance.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * link or expand "mas" when first mentioned? Is it minute of arcs?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed I missed that. Suggest spelling out the first mention. HaEr48 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to reconcile "Since its discovery, there has been no sign of orbital motion" and "The pair would have an estimated orbital period of around 24,000 years" Can you clarify what the latter signifies if there is no orbital motion?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "a companion star to Rigel" can we name the companion as well?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * with the note, et dicitur Algebar. Nominatur etiam Rigel: can we translate this note?
 * anyone knows the translation of this note? HaEr48 (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Your call: I think we can either make it a footnote, or just remove the Latin, or reword somehow to remove repetition. But I think it's not preferable to leave an untranslated phrase and leave our readers confused as to what it means. HaEr48 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:REFER, we should avoid a lead sentence like "is the name applied to a star system". Is the scope of the article about the star system, or just the star?
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How about something like "Rigel ... is a star system in the constellation of Orion, whose brightest star is also known by the same name"? Also, if almost all the visible light from earth comes from the primary star (99.75% as you said), I believe it's worth mentioning in the article e.g. in Observation, if not in the lead itself. HaEr48 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that too. I thought we were going with defining as the star system due to the current wording of the lead, but if "Rigel is a star ... " makes more sense, let's go with it. HaEr48 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, It can be part of the second sentence "It is also the brightest and most massive component of a star system known by the same name ..." or something similar. Also suggest adding some clarification, as well as the fact that the whole system appears as a single dot, with nearly all light coming from the main star, in the article body. But I like your lead change. HaEr48 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert so feel free to disagree with me on this. I'm trying to judge comprehensiveness by comparing with another FA for Betelgeuse, it has significantly more detail including motion/kinematics, mass loss, a section of "circumstellar dynamics", as well as its life phase. Is there any reason why this article has much less details on those?
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this article, I learned a lot from reading it. HaEr48 (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, although would be happy if more info can be added about evolution, as mentioned. Thank you for this article! HaEr48 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler

 * I should know better than to make promises, even qualified ones. But broken promises don't take away from the fondness I have always had for this constellation and for this star. I'm reserving a slot, and will probably make a few comments now, and return later, and intermittently, for others. (Note: I haven't read the previous reviewers' comments.)
 * "is the name applied to a star system—or strictly to the system's brightest star—in the constellation of Orion.
 * "strictly," i.e. "with the exact use of words," has the effect of narrowing a word's application. Logically, I think, it accompanies an "and" not an "or," for the sentence is equivalent in meaning to the two independent clauses: "... is the name applied to a star system; strictly/when narrowed/with the exact use of words, it applies to the system's brightest star." So, would it be be clearer to write:
 * "... is the name applied to a star system in the constellation of Orion, and strictly to the system's brightest star." (that way there are no breaks in the middle of the general definition either which may distract the reader.)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the m-dashes. :( I like them too, but prefer them generally for explication, emphasis, clarification, or determinedly purposeful meandering.  As two m-dashes are a form of parenthesizing, what they enclose is generally of less semantic value than the main clause.   In this instance, though, we seem to be emphasizing both interpretations—the system and the star—equally. If that is not the case, please let me know, and we can go back to your version, or rephrase it again.  As for "or vs. and," I haven't checked, but I would imagine "or" to be more common in speech or casual writing, but "and" with "strictly (speaking) to be favored in books."    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are also the eternal WP pieties—and perhaps of other encyclopedias as well—about naming and being. But shortening it to "... is a star system in the constellation of Orion, and strictly the system's brightest star" is meaningless as "strictly (speaking)" is about speech, names, and expressions, not about existence.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Britannica avoids the naming/being dilemma with: "Rigel, also called Beta Orionis,(is) one of the brightest stars in the sky, intrinsically as well as in appearance. A blue-white supergiant in the constellation Orion, Rigel is about 870 light-years from the Sun and is about 47,000 times as luminous. A companion double star, also bluish white, is of the sixth magnitude." In other words, they avoid the collective name.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Damned if you do ... I see the problem, though I personally don't mind the naming/referring beginnings. In my youth on Wikipedia, I even created quite a few. But they fell victim to the-whatnots-that-be. As you have already made the change once, you could let it remain until the evidence of opposition becomes overwhelming. After all Rigel is a name for a complicated reality. Even if we reduce the scope of the name's reference, as Britannica does, it is still a name. However, one approach for avoiding naming/referring but still preserving the complexity could be a slightly more prosaic opening "'The star system named Rigel ... etc ... lies in the constellation of Orion, and appears as a single blue-white point of light to the naked eye; the system contains at least four stars, the principal star of which, named Rigel or Rigel A, is a massive blue supergiant of spectral type B8Ia.'"
 * I'm throwing this out there as another possibility, one possibly attracting fewer objections.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Appearing as a single blue-white point of light to the naked eye, the system contains at least four stars, the primary star of which (either Rigel A or simply Rigel) is a massive blue supergiant of spectral type B8Ia."
 * I have rewritten it thus. I just realised that the IAU has pushed for the name to refer to the star and not the system, although the system is broadly known as the Rigel system or abbreviated to Rigel (sort of). Question is, is it worth adding somewhere that the system can be called 'Rigel' (though come to think of it, I don't know that any source specifically says that) or the Rigel system or if that is just obvious then leave it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nicely written.
 * do you need "either" and the parenthesis? (See more below.)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not good at punctuation, but is there a comma before "or simply Rigel?"
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is "primary star" meant in an astronomical sense, such as primary (astronomy) (i.e. the star is massive enough to constitute the approximate center of mass of the four-body system)? If so, would it be better to break it up as:
 * "Appearing as a single blue-white point of light to the naked eye, the system contains at least four stars; the primary, Rigel A, or simply Rigel, is a massive blue supergiant of spectral type B8Ia?"
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If, on the other hand, "primary" is meant in the ordinary meaning of "principal or chief," then would it be better to say:
 * "Appearing as a single blue-white point of light to the naked eye, the system contains at least four stars, the principal one of which—Rigel A, or simply Rigel—is a massive blue supergiant of spectral type B8Ia?"
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Should "spectral type" be wikilinked to spectral type?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * and B8Ia to Stellar_classification?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It is calculated to be anywhere from 61,500 to 363,000 times as luminous and 18 to 24 times as massive as the Sun, depending on the method used to calculate its properties and assumptions about its distance, estimated to be about 860 light-years (260 pc).
 * Is "massive" meant in its astronomical meaning of "having great mass?" If so, should it be linked to mass (and not, were we in the business of linking, to massive star, which doesn't quite pin down the meaning of "massive")? I.e. would it be better to rewrite: "It is calculated to be anywhere from 61,500 to 363,000 times as luminous as the sun, and 18 to 24 times as massive?"
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "depending on the method used to calculate its properties and assumptions about its distance, estimated to be about 860 light-years (260 pc)."
 * "depending ... distance" is too vague, too generic, to convey any meaning. My thought is: either make it more precise with more information in a separate sentence or get rid of it.
 * "estimated to be about 860 light-years (260 pc)." This is confusing.  Apparently, the assumptions about the distance computation are varied, but the distance is not.
 * What is not clear here is this: The luminosity and mass estimates have wide ranges depending on the assumptions about distance. Then why is the distance also not dependent on these assumptions, and estimated in a range?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Its radius is over 70 times that of the Sun, and its surface temperature is 12,100 K."
 * If this is a comparison with the sun, then the surface temperatures should be compared as well. Besides, we were comparing the physical dimensions earlier, so why did we leave out the radius from the previous sentence?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. OK Thanks. I do think you should split the previous sentence for easier comprehension. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another thing to note is that the elementary volume formula, 4/3 times pi times radius cube, suggests that all things being equal, the mass of Rigel should be 70 x 70 x 70, i.e. 343,000 times that of the sun; but it is only 18 to 24 times in mass. Is this is linked to burning out most of its fuel and expanding?  Either way, should the:
 * luminosity and temperature be in one sentence (as well as the comparison of the latter with the sun)?
 * and the radius and the mass be in another sentence?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there sources that would support a statement such as: "Although Rigel's radius is 70 times that of the sun, its mass is only between 18 and 24 the sun's (or "that of the sun.")? If so, such a sentence would be more meaningful.


 * " Rigel varies slightly in brightness, with apparent magnitude ranging from 0.05 to 0.18."
 * Are there sources that would support: "Rigel varies only slightly in brightness?" If so, the addition of "only" will help the reader later when Betelguese is mentioned.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Its intrinsic variability is caused by pulsations, and it is classified as an Alpha Cygni variable."
 * This is not very transparent to a novice such as I. Would it be clearer if we write: "Its intrinsic variability is caused by pulsations that vary inconsistently over its surface area, causing it to be classified as an Alpha Cygni variable?"  (or somesuch?)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Rigel is generally the seventh-brightest star in the night sky and the brightest star in Orion, though it is occasionally outshone by (more variable) Betelgeuse."
 * Nice sentence!
 * Why the parentheses?
 * It should probably be "the more variable Betelguese."
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Rigel's mass-loss due to its stellar wind is estimated be around 10 million times more than that of the Sun."
 * :) Aha. So this explains the abnormally low mass.  Which means: would it lend greater coherence to the paragraph if the sentences are reshuffled so as to combine the semantically related ones, e.g. something like:
 * "Rigel's radius is more than 70 times that of the sun; its mass is 18 to 24 times greater. Its mass-loss due to its stellar wind is estimated be around 10 million times that of the sun?"
 * Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I like the new paragraph Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Estimated to be around 7 to 9 million years old, it has exhausted its core hydrogen fuel, expanded and cooled to become a supergiant, and will end its life as a type II supernova."
 * Nicely written.


 * More later. Looking forward!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead looks good now. I won't have time to go through all the sections, but will take a good look at: Nomenclature, Distance, Stellar System and Etymology, starting with the last.  The stellar system reminds me that you guys should work on taking Kepler's laws to FAC.  The beautiful derivation by Newton was one of the highlights of my sophomore mechanics course in college.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Etymology


 * "al-jabbaar" (The mighty one) seems to be Orion. See B, or perhaps in Arabic accounts, he was visualized as A, judging from what follows.  The Latin, which I now only infirmly remember, seems to be from this book, page 158 and 159, or some earlier version of which this is a verbatim copy.  It begins with "Stars of Orion ..."  Number 2 is "Bright (lucido) which is in the right (dextrum) shoulder (humerus) is called Betelguese" Number 35 on the next page is: "Bright (lucido) which is in the left (sinistro) foot (pedo) ... and called Algebar named also Rigel."  The "..." part—which is probably a reference to The Odyssey and to Odysseus seeing a shadow of Orion in the water, or the underworld—can be left out.  It is your call, but I think adding some version of the image A and reference to "bright which is in the left foot" in addition to what you already have, might be more motivating for a reader.  (A is preferable to B, because the reference is to the foot, not leg or knee). It is your burden, of course, to find a modern citation.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I found the full quote from the Alfonsine tables. It is, "Lucida que est in pede sinistro: et est communis ei et aquae: et dicitur Algebar nominatur etiam Rigel," translated as, "Bright which is in the left foot and is common to him and the water and called Algebar (is) named also Rigel." The reference to water is to the constellation Eridanus, which lies at the "foot" of Orion, but is also a river in mythology.  The citation is to   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Latin is typically not translated in English language texts or encyclopedias. So we can translate ourselves, which I have done.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but can we have some order in the review process here? Is the previous editor done with his or her edits? If not, why is s/he not discussing the proposed edits here?  We can't just randomly add an illustration, File:Kitāb suwar al-kawākib al-ṯābita, Orion, BnF-Arabe-5036-193v.jpg, from a 15th century copy transcription of the Book of Fixed Stars (whose various versions typically have two illustrations, the view from the earth, and its mirror-image in the celestial globe, which is viewed with a mirror).  The labeling moreover has an error.  The label is rendered by the calligrapher "al-hausa," not "al-jausa."  Missing a nuqta (or diacritics dot) below changes jauza to hauza; it maybe that in some form of medieval Arabic the nuqta was dropped in this context, or the calligrapher attached it somewhere else, where it is not readily visible, or maybe it was called al-hauza then or in that region, but we can't have these kinds of confusing undiscussed additions.  And it is confusing for a reader when the illustrations suddenly changes to a mirror image, and despite that the caption says "left foot.'  If an illustration from the Book of Fixed Stars is needed, there are better versions which are not missing the nuqta either, from this version dated 1009-10 AD (Bodleian Library, Oxford, manuscript Marsh 144), which has both views: the  the regular view from earth, and the mirror image in the celestial globe, but with separate illustration which is much older, transcribed 23 years after the death of the author, the Persian astronomer, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi, most likely by the author's son (see here).  I still think that the illustration above has a much better fit with the Latin.  Mainly though, I would prefer the edits to be discussed here; otherwise, what is the point of us making comments?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't control where people post queries and it is challenging going back and forth between two reviewers. I find the colour coding helps. I meant to get to outstanding items yesterday but was sidelined with (many) RL chores. I will try to see what is redulicated between reviewers and note. Hang on a sec. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to hold off until s/he is done. Removed all my orange now. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ok I have answered the last two of Ha Er's queries, and waiting to see if they are satisified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha Er is now satisfied so all outstanding issues are within this section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * {{font color|blue|
 * Back to the image - {{ping|Fowler&amp;fowler}}, happy to go with the older one - which one would you suggest - the reversed one or the one the right-way-round? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * {{font color|blue|If the source contains an image that isn't reversed, and there is nothing that is being demonstrated by having the image reversed, then I'd say use the one that conforms to modern expectations.}} Lithopsian (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. The citation would be to {{citation|last1=Casagrande-Kim|first1=Roberta|last2=Thrope|first2=Samuel|last3=Ukeles|first3=Raquel|title=Romance and Reason: Islamic Transformations of the Classical Past|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5fJIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA92|year=2018|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-18184-4|pages=92–93}}, where you can read about the late 10th century CE Persian astronomer Al-Sufi and in particular, "Al-Sufi's book was translated into Latin and other European languages. Al-Sufi himself planned the figures, two for each constellation: one shows how they appear to an observer looking up toward the heavens; the other how they appear to the observer looking down upon a celestial globe." (pages 92–93).  As for the images, I think the [straightforward view from the earth, drawn 23 years after the Al-Safi's death by his son, and cited above, would be best.  As for the colorful picture above, with the Latin entry from Alfonsine Tables, I will explain another time.  I'm feeling a little tired right now.  Thanks.  [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler| Fowler&amp;fowler ]] «Talk»  19:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Added image and footnote as per discussion. Having some trouble cropping image. Added the reversed one as that was the norm in celestial cartography. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Looks good.  Happy to offer support.  It was nice interacting,  !   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * {{font colour|brown|Thanks! Speaking for me, I really appreciate some of the logic and thoroughness.}} Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
I'm going to sound like here, but can someone take pity on an old lady's eyes and ... not use so much color markup? It's very jarring and makes the FAC much harder to read. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So now you see what it's like to have old eyes and have to read through multi-colored text :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed my orange. I realized after that my signature, rendered in some shade of goldenrod is warning enough that it is me, not someone else.  Thanks for awakening that realization.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helped a lot. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Did I miss source and image reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny I could have sworn I saw...nevermind, they need doing methinks...I'll go do someone else's Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we still need the source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikki, would you be able to help out here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Cas and co, any reason we shouldn't have a citation at the end of the first para of Stellar system? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The intention was that it should merely be a summary of the rest of the section, like a mini-lead. Then everything mentioned in that paragraph would be described and referenced elsewhere in the section. In theory, anyway.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

British or American
We need to choose a spelling convention. Attic Salt (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see only three spelling issues differences:
 * "Colour index" which redirects to Color index;
 * "centre of gravity," which if wikilinked redirects to center of gravity, and
 * "modelled." The This last, being in past-simple will not typically appear in page names, but the present continuous—with the same sense of the verb model, and with similar spelling variations—will.  These by a long shot are rendered in AmE: Modeling language, Modeling and simulation, Modeling perspective, Financial modeling, Catastrophe modeling,  Solid modeling, Video modeling, 3-D modeling.


 * The topic "Rigel" does not have any country- or region-specific context, or right of first refusal in English. It was first known in Sumerian astronomy, then Babylonian, then ancient Egyptian, then after a long time in Greek, then Hellenistic, then ancient Indian, then Roman, then Byzantine, then Arabic, ... Then European Latin, and none were English speaking.
 * The pre-existing spelling within the article—an aspect of the vagaries of who amongst speakers of the world's regional varieties of English began to edit it first—has no heft in a topic as universal as "Rigel."
 * The spelling convention should, therefore, be decided on the basis of the spelling convention of the topic's semantic network. That is predominantly American English, as the above examples demonstrate—in this encyclopedia, that is.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS I know its not kosher, but I've changed the layout of my first comment for easier comprehension after Lithopsian's reply below.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably many of the Britishisms came from me. My background means I often can't tell remember which way is which.  If the article is largely US spelling and there is no compelling reason to change that, the rest can be converted.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I made it too complicated. The article is not largely any spelling.  It uses only three instances of British spelling which I have listed in the first sentence.  The rest of the article is written in spelling common to all Englishes.  However, my reasoning for adopting AmE is simply that many of the links or related concepts are in AmE spelling.  So, unless you want to watch the drive-bys—that will invariably keep sprouting up, changing "centre" to "center"—with the eyes of a hawk, you might as well change to AmE spelling.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * :) I belatedly discovered MOS:RETAIN, which says, "use the variety (of English) found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." With a view to ascertaining said variety, I landed on this version of 2015 edited by you. Well, that as far as I can tell had, "color," "center," and "modelling." So, the identifiable variety is "after every two American spellings, add one British."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomenclature
The section on nomenclature includes the following sentences: "However, Bayer did not strictly order the stars by brightness; rather he grouped them by magnitude class and then ordered the stars within each class according to a different scheme. Rigel and Betelgeuse were both considered to be of the first magnitude class, and in Orion the stars of each class are thought to have been ordered north to south."

The first sentence alludes to a "different scheme", though this is not explained. The second sentence mentions ordering "north to south" and says that this is "in Orion". Can we drop the allusion to "another scheme" and simply say that ordering was north-south or was this really just done for some constellations (like Orion)? Some consistency and succinctness might be possible, here, but I'm not sure. Attic Salt (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. Removed segment which doesn't really add anything specific Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the north-to-south scheme just happened to be the one used in this case. Or possibly it is only a coincidence since I don't think there is documentation from Bayer that this was the scheme used. In other cases, the order is east to west, or appears to just random.  Bayer may have had his own reasons in each case.  The ordering of the second-class stars in Orion is nearly north to south, and the fainter stars not at all.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass
Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.


 * "File:Treasures3.jpg" Could we have a proper source please?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know that is the original source? Because I doubt it. I would be expecting an image from the European Southern Observatory's web site.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unusual, but OK. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "File:Hertzsprung-Russel StarData.png" The deletion request issue needs resolving.
 * I made a version from the original file showing Rigel and substituted it into the page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have tidied up the formatting.


 * "File:Book of the Fixed Stars Auv0333 Orion.jpg" I will accept this even though the source given does not connect.
 * Caption: "Orion, with Rigel at bottom right, at optical wavelengths plus Hα to emphasize gas clouds" Guess which bit I think an average reader won't understand. I know that it is Wikilinked, but one shouldn't have to click through to inderstand an image caption.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that expanding "Hα" to 'the hydrogen-alpha spectral line' would make it more readable.
 * A reminder that this point is unaddressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * okay, unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Caption: "The left foot is annotated" Suggest changing to 'The foot on the left' as it is actually the image's right foot.
 * fixed by IP :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Be consistent with your alt texting.
 * alt text added to last image Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Cheers. A couple of comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

 * Be consistent in whether publication locations are included
 * locations added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some still missing, eg FN33, while others are inconsistently formatted - eg "New York, NY" vs just "New York". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there no better source than dictionary.com for the alternate pronunciation?
 * I found a book and switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN6 is malformed
 * Not sure what is malformed. Can you elaborate please? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to actually be a journal publication, at least not in its current form, though it includes a partial citation to an earlier publication which I can't assess given the information provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can use cite web, but the earlier publication should either be detailed or removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Fn20 is missing publisher
 * added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN21 is incomplete
 * filled Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN30: the publisher listed in the book linked doesn't match that provided, and the one in the book is a republisher - what are the original details for this publication?
 * corrected Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Fn35: is there no more recent publication confirming this information?
 * I have had this problem with nautical stuff before. I didn't find one and sort of an antiquated use Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN36: publisher
 * added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN38: author formatting doesn't match other sources
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN59: if location is to be included it should be in its own parameter
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN61: D. Pourbaix appears to be the author, not the work
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Publisher should also be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The doi provided does not seem to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just clicked it now and it worked (after some lag) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN70: should cite the specific chapter, which has an individual author
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN71: link and ISBN both go to different editions
 * okay, what would be the best way to fix this. The archive book is from 1899 so too early for isbn. Shall we just remove it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which version are you actually wanting to cite - the one corresponding to the link, the ISBN, or the other bibliographic details? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pick one or the other, doesn't matter to me which but the link and the cite should match. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * okay, I tossed a coin mentally and went with 1963, so link changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN83 is malformed
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Are you citing the version of the article from the Observer, or the version from the linked website? If the former the citation is incomplete; if the latter the Observer is not the publisher that should be cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN84: we have an article on this source that provides additional bibliographic details
 * Lithopsian (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN85: publisher?
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FN86 should identify language, and the organization listed is the publisher
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FNs 88 and 89 are missing retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * are you satisfied with the sources? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have flagged a few remaining points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)