Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Triangulum/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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC).

Triangulum

 * Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet another small constellation. as well as being pretty comprehensive I've had eyes look over it to make the prose more engaging. Let me know what to fix - Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey
Feel free to disagree with any of the following:


 * "Its name is Latin for triangle, derived from its three brightest stars, which form a long and narrow triangle.": as a translation, I think "triangle" should be in quotes here.
 * yeah, I'd normally do that too, except I paused with the "for" before it...done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "triangle, derived from its three brightest stars, which form a long and narrow triangle.": delink the second "triangle"
 * done (dang, how'd I miss that??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "with six gaining Bayer designations.": take a look at WP:PLUSING
 * I do this construction alot - changed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not an astronomer, but I get the feeling "yellow-white" has some special meaning, rather than just a description of the colour. If that's the case, is there something that can be linked to?
 * No, it's just a colour, though discussing colours can be a vexed topic in star observation.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "a member of our Local Group.": I'm pretty sure we're supposed to avoid "our"
 * not fussed either way but ok, I can see the case for this...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Δελτωτόν/Deltoton": is this an accepted formatting? It looks weird to me.  I'd write it "Deltoton (Δελτωτόν)", the way you did with "MULAPIN (𒀯𒀳)" earlier
 * I've done that for seven years, but the other way makes sense...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "to the earlier Greeks": what, Greeks earlier than the Ancient Greeks themselves?
 * removed - not sure how that ended up there. redundant anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "transliterated into Deltoton": as above, needs quotes around "Deltaon"
 * I removed it as transliterate means the word has already been written, hence no need to write the same word again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "then later became the Latin Deltotum": maybe better worded as " "Deltotum" in Latin ".
 * Even better - Latinized Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Ptolemy called it as Τρίγωνον": no transliteration this time?
 * added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "it was Romanized as Trigonum": quotes around "Trigonum"
 * See I'd stick quote marks around English meanings, and I've sometimes italicized words-as-words, but I wouldn't put quote marks here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree here—it's the difference between the signifier and the signified: it was Romanized as the word "Trigonum", not as the thing signified by that word. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's what I do - e.g. Triangulum "triangle" (signifier = word-as-word = italicized, signified = quoted) - trigonum is signifier and hence italicized...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I really can't get myself to agree here, but I can't find a style guideline to back me up, so I'll just have to let this go. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "(天大将军, heaven's great general)": quotes around translation
 * I would here though - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)


 * "representing honor": is this in Commonwealth or Unitedstatesian English?
 * given we've got Romanized, Latinized and color, may as well be US English - can't see any other words in it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Later, Bayer called the constellation": at this point, Bayer has yet to have been introduced to the reader, so this is pretty jarring
 * tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "The smaller constellation was not recognised by the IAU": the who?
 * Aaah, the International Astronomical Union  - spelt out and linked at first instance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "when the constellations were established in the 1920s": is there something that could be linked to here?
 * yup - Constellation#IAU_constellations  Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "are defined by a polygon": I'm not familiar with the jargon, but shouldn't this be "defined as"?
 * Yeah, I think 'as' works better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "in error by Baily and thus refer": "refers"?
 * yup - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "16 Trianguli was noted by Baily to be": I'd prefer no passive here: "Baily noted 16 Trianguli was"
 * activated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Iota Trianguli is an "attractive double star with a noticeable color contrast" whose": quotes should be attributed; is there any reason this can't be paraphrased instead?
 * On reading I removed it and let the observations speak for themselves, though added "contrasting" to the 2nd component. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "doppler imaging": isn't "Doppler" capitalized?
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "2-7 times as massive as the sun": needs an endash
 * fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "as massive as Jupiter that takes 472 days": I can't expalin why, but I feel like "adn" would be better than "than"
 * the 472 days refers to the companion - I think "which" works better there anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Move link for "light years" from "Deep-sky objects" section to first mention in "Stars" section
 * fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "and at magnitude 5.8, it is bright": the comman is unnecessary
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Because of its low surface brightness, low power is required.": the meaning of this is not clear to me. Does it mean a device with a power source is required to see it?
 * means that low magnification to maximise the light coming thru the lens - can't find anything to link it to though.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Overlinking: in "Stars", "Beta Trianguli" and "Alpha Trianguli"
 * delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In ref 9, we're given: "pp. 301–02, 48": does this mean "pages 301, 302, and 348", or "pages 301, 302, and 348"? If the former, 348 needs to be written in full; if the latter, "48" needs to come before 301–02.
 * oops, I meant 348 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Cas Liber's dealt appropriately with all my concerns. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some of the infobox details don't appear to be sourced in the article
 * Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
 * Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
 * FN17: formatting
 * FNs 20, 21 and similar should use endashes in their titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * all five done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone

 * "it was presumed to be 32s in error by Baily and thus refers to 7.4 magnitude HD 10407". What?? What is 32s? A star? A measurement? And when the article says "thus refers" in the present tense, does this mean this is currently considered correct? If so, how come the Flamsteed designation isn't used? Sorry, I was flummoxed by this. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Flamsteed designated a star at a point where subsequent observations showed there was no star. Baily concluded he must have been looking at HD 10407 and mistranscribed its coordinates - so later when he looked at his records he wrote it up as in Triangulum. However, we don't know that for sure - all we can be certain is that at the location marked 1 Trianguli there is no star. Make sense...? Will think of how to rephrase Tried a rephrase - hope that helps.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sort of. I have tried a further tweak to render it thus: "...Baily presumed that the coordinates were mistranscribed 32s in error by Flamsteed and in fact referred to 7.4 magnitude HD 10407." Can you check that this is still correct? However, I had a separate issue: I have no clue what 32s means: i still don't understand whether that is a measurement of something. I may be being boneheaded, but it just doens't look like anything I've seen... sorry if I'm being boneheaded. Oh wait, it means 32... what, arcseconds?! Maybe spell that out... hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks better. Sorry, not arcseconds as such but seconds in Right ascension  - linked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the section on history and mythology. I have a minor format question. Currently we have at one point "The Ancient Greeks called Triangulum Deltoton" (ie italicised), at another point "...Beta, Gamma and Delta Trianguli were called "Teen Ta Tseang Keun"..." (ie. in quotation marks) but later "Johann Bayer called the constellation Triplicitas and Orbis terrarum tripertitus..." (not italicised). What is the criterion for determining the formal of proper names that are not in English? Partly I want consistency, but I also found the correct interpretation difficult at one point later on, where we have "...renaming the original Triangulum Majus." I wondered whether this meant he renamed Triangulum as Majus, or renamed Triangulum as Triangulum Majus (I assume it is the latter)? If the latter, then regardless of formatting you could solve the problem by writing "...renaming the original as Triangulum Majus." hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Italics are used in their words-as-words and also as they are foreign terms - this has cropped up before in sections with many terms where we could feasibly pepper the whole section in italics (which might not look great style-wise...)! I guess as Triangulum (Latin) isn't, I'd then reserve it for words in foreign scripts (in this case Greek, Arabic and Chinese) and have italicized the Chinese term. Regarding the Majus/Minus issue - none of the three stars excised were part of the pattern of the main triangle. Planted an "as" in there now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "bordered by Andromeda to the north and west, Pisces to the southwest, Aries to the south, and Perseus to the northeast." I am just wondering about consistency of treatment of the compass points. Because "southwest" and "northeast" are used (ie. you are being specific to the extent of eight directions of the compass) I did kind of feel that there was a big gap to the east and southeast, whereas all other directions are covered (the way you write about Andromeda covers northwest without a problem). Is there any reasonable solution to this, or does one just live with it? :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just describing what is on the map (bearing in mind east and west are reversed!) - changed it to clarify we're not missing anything Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jim
Just a few queries, otherwise looks sound  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Eratosthenes linked it with the Nile Delta. Alternately, the Roman writer Hyginus linked it to the triangular island of Sicily&mdash; why is this an alternation? If you mean "Alternatively", I can't see why that is appropriate either. Also "linked" overworked
 * agreed, sloppy word now removed and "while" used instead, one "linked" removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The text from The Ancient Greeks called... to ...Romanized as Trigonum suggests that there was a chronological name sequence Deltoton... Deltotum... Sicilia... Trigonon... Trigonum., but the vagueness of the dating leads me to wonder whether the any of the five names were in concurrent use (especially Deltoton/Trigonon or Deltotum/Trigonum)
 * The five were not in chronological order (bar the Gk/Latin bits). I guess they could have been used concurrently. I don't have enough information to comment on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Latinized, honor, catalogued&mdash;AE or BE?
 * BE Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 4.00 around 112 light-years from Earth.[15] It is around double
 * around --> abouted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Because of its low surface brightness, low power is required. &mdash;Is this right? I would have thought low brightness needed higher power.
 * low power means larger field of view and more light comes in telescope making it easier to see (as it is large) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Duh... you wouldn't think that I did two years of physics as part of my chemistry degree!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support all looks good  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment : Nice article. The only problem that jumped out at me was this sentence: "It was also called Sicilia, because Ceres, patron goddess of Sicily, was claimed to have begged Jupiter that the island be placed in the heavens." Between the clauses and the subjunctive part, it gets convoluted. Maybe something more like this: "It was also called Sicilia, because the Romans believed Ceres, patron goddess of Sicily, begged Jupiter to place the island in the heavens." --Coemgenus (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ok, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * thx - much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Note -- did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One hasn't been done, but there are only two - one own work ( File:TriangulumCC.jpg ) and one IAU starchart ( File:Triangulum IAU.svg ), which copyright information is given here. (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For this image File:TriangulumCC.jpg it says "© all photographs taken by Till Credner, AlltheSky.com" here . Graham Colm (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad - I meant not my own work but the own work of an uploader (rather than someone getting a third party's photos off flickr or elsewhere) - Till Credner has been uploading his photos to wikipedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see how this resolves the © problem. Graham Colm (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Graham, Cas. I'm sure I've been round this loop as a reviewer of a previous GAN or FAC for another constellation, but i can't find it just now found it. My reading of the sitation is that the copyrightholder, who is the creator of this image, is Till Credner, as stated on the AllTheSky site. That same person has then uploaded the same image to WM Commons and released it under a CC licence. My understanding is that multiple copyrights in an image can exist and that by uploading it to WP under a CC, the copyright holder has validly placed their own image in the public domain. What am I missing? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Graham, I'm inclined to agree with Hamilton's reading of it -- let me know if you still see an issue or believe one of our regular image reviewers should opine... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian, I'm satisfied with this explanation. Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2013 (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) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)