Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1

Canis Minor
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I buffed to for GA…felt okay about it without being deliriously happy with how it came together....would like to finish the job and take it to FAC.....but every time I look at it I just feel a bit blocked...all input gratefully accepted.

Thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just skimming through it now. Not a thorough inspection yet, but:
 * I think more should be wiki-linked. Examples: northern celestial hemisphere, Bayer, Flamsteed, etc.
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps succinctly explain culmination - perhaps just say "reaches its highest point in the sky on..." Culmination seems to me archaic, even in the parlance of astronomy.
 * placed in parentheses - others would complain of an easter egg link I suspect.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

...I'll continue looking. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see the mythology section expanded. The article should be more explicit about where the myths are coming from. Don't take for granted that readers will know which mythology Zeus comes from, for example. An excellent source for this is The Constellations by Motz and Nathanson. AstroCog (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * sigh. I returned that book to the library the other day... I think I'll be fetching it again... got the book again...not a huge amount in it..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You may already be doing this, but another suggestion is to use a current constellation FA as a working example. For example, Aries. It's structure is slightly different, though I'm not sure that this article would need to conform to the same structure, but the constellation task force seems to think that all constellation articles should have the same structure. Granted, zodiacal constellations are going to have much more coverage than the rest, but it's a good benchmark. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah. was musing on that and will probably rejig like that Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by GermanJoe - after a first complete, but quick read:
 * lead Are Procyon and Gomeisa the two stars, which Ptolemy used for his pattern? Just curious, maybe worth adding somewhere.
 * yes. Will think of how to work that in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you double-check the magnitude of Procyon? The sub-article has 0.34 instead of 0.38 (not sure if apparent or absolute though).
 * Aaah, good pickup - this paper and SIMBAD both have 0.34 (these are both Apparent Magnitude), so I'll use that - more up to date than an older star guidebook. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are two faint deep sky objects within the constellation's borders. - true, but without context this number means little. Maybe just state the total number of deep sky objects - is it 5? The main text is also a bit confusing about this (see below).
 * Yeah, reworded - really if we had more and more powerful telescopes, there'd be millions of galaxies everywhere... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * History ( "The Ancient Greeks called the constellation προκυων/Procyon, "coming before the dog",..." - In German the phrase would be "auf den Hund gekommen ..." (just a joke, ignore at will) ).
 * "... and other variations by Cicero and others." => try to replace the second "others" with something different to avoid repetition and vagueness.
 * Yeah, reworded and expanded this bit a little Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure, the mix of historical, "factual" information and mythological background is optimal here - both topics are related obviously, but blur into each other while reading and make their distinction difficult. But i have no better idea at the moment (edit for clarity: i agree, the mythological context is worthwhile to add, this (minor) concern is only about its presentation).
 * I've reorganised the section so para 1 is the constellation and what it represents, para 2 is mythological associations, and para 3 is some alternative designations proposed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It feels, like the end of Western history misses a final sentence: when did "Canis Minor" became the commonly accepted name (after all the strange alternative suggestions listed)?
 * Agreed - but I can only go on what is in sources - I think reorganising helps. It's been called Canis Minor since Ptolemy and possibly before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "The Inuit called Procyon Sikuliarsiujuittuq; it was considered to be a separate constellation that did not include Gomeisa." => Did just 1 star form the constellation, or was it "considered [part of] a separate constellation"? If it was a single object, maybe avoid the term "constellation", it's confusing for the layman for only one star.
 * "Procyon received this designation because it typically appears red (though sometimes slightly greenish) as it rises during the Arctic winter;" => still not clear for me, why the appearance is red. Is that just the atmospheric effect during rising?
 * I've taken out inuit segment as it only refers to Procyon - better to just leave in that article, and restrict mentions to ones which include at least two stars Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the actual guideline for apparent and absolute magnitude notation? (suggestion: use "apparent magnitude" once, then only "magnitude". Always specify "absolute magnitude", when used). - check throughout for correct types of magnitude.
 * yes. That's how books generally do it - will check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Stars "[These] stars mark the paws of the Lesser Dog's left hind leg, while Zeta marks the right." => "These stars" is confusing, your last subject was the single star Delta1. Can anything be said about the other 2 Delta stars?
 * yes/added Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "YZ Canis Minoris is a flare star, so called due to its solar flares being more powerful than those of our sun." - from the sub-article: "A flare star is a variable star that can undergo unpredictable dramatic increases in brightness for a few minutes." Your description needs clarification, the second part seems to miss some of the most important aspects of a flare star (variable, unpredictable, dramatic). The comparison with the sun doesn't seem to cover the original definition.
 * checked and reworded - aligned with source Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Deep-sky objects "NGC 2459 is a group of five 13th and 14th magnitude stars that lie close together but do not appear to be an open cluster as such.[41] A similar situation has occurred with NGC 2394." => This needs a little more detail for the non-astronomer: Why is NGC 2459 apparently no "real" open cluster? Is NGC 2394 another Canis Minor object? What "similar situation" specifically?
 * i.e. the stars lie close together in the sky but do not appear to be related, and yes the second one is also in Canis Minor - will reword Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Another nice constellation article, though it still needs some polishing (did some minor copy-edits). GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Check for mortal FAC-sins :) like pp. for single pages instead of p. and similar stuff.

Comments by Sasata (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some sources you might want to investigate:


 * Title: A cannonball star candidate in Canis Minor
 * Author(s): Marcos, RD; Marcos, CD
 * Source:    NEW ASTRONOMY  Volume: 10   Issue: 7   Pages: 551-559   DOI: 10.1016/j.newast.2005.04.001   Published: JUL 2005
 * nice - something to add to the red dwarf section Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Title: The colour of Sirius in ancient times
 * Author(s): ChapmanRietschi, PAL
 * Source:    QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY  Volume: 36   Issue: 4   Pages: 337-350   Published: DEC 1995
 * only mentioned in passing - nothing to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Title: Ancient and mediaeval observations of comets and novae in Chinese sources
 * Author(s): Ho Peng Yoke, Ho Ping-Yü
 * Source: Vistas in Astronomy Volume: 5, Pages: 127-225 Published: 1962
 * trawled through this - fascinating paper but no Canis Minor events I can see. I think it came up as a false positive due to Canis Minor being depicted on star charts at the end of the paper in a western to chinese constellation star chart. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from StringTheory11 (t • c)


 * In the first paragraph of the lead, I'm not sure what you mean by "in its actual form".
 * I believe, i sneaked that in for clarity. Was trying to express, that the Ptolemaic pattern and the modern constellation are -strictly speaking- not exactly the same. Patterns evolve: designations change, boundaries change, stars get added or removed. But as this is true for a lot of constellations, maybe that detail is not really useful. GermanJoe (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * was mystified for a moment - yeah, sorry GermanJoe I removed those words as I don't think they add much to the meaning. Canis Minor is not exceptionally different to most other constellations really WRT minor changes over time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No prob. In hindsight it really was a little trivial to add. GermanJoe (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would rename "characteristics" to something like "boundaries". Characteristics implies that it would be talking about other important factors, such the stars, which it does not.
 * good point....we've not discussed this before and I see your point. I think we'd have to change a few constellation articles.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Canis Minor contains only two bright stars" is a subjective statement. I would replace it with something like "Canis Minor contains only two stars brighter than magnitude 3".
 * yeah....brighter than magnitude 4 actually...changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason that the "Lambda Canis Minoris" designation is obsolete?
 * yes. Bode proposed it - it hadn't been used or thought of by Bayer or Lacaille - and nobody took it up. Pity really as it turns out to be an interesting star Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The examples in the "stars" section seem to be somewhat cherry-picked. I would probably trim this section down slightly; for example, I don't think there is a need to mention VSX J074727.6+065050 or YZ Canis Minoris. If you disagree, however, then feel free to leave them in; this isn't a deal-breaker.
 * YZ CMi I think is important...will think about t'other. I do see your point though. These articles are at high risk of listyness.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just my 2 cents, I think talking about stars that either have really extensive literature or are mentioned in a couple of the popular astronomy guides makes sense; they're clearly important and there's more than basic information to write about them. I agree with Cas, YZ is probably worth mentioning, but the other may not be. I'll comb through some papers in the next couple of days when I have time. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 07:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On thinking about it, I'd rather leave VSX J074727.6+065050 in actually. It's a dwarf nova, and they aren't common and I think worth noting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In contrast, the "deep sky objects" section feels a little bare. If there aren't any other interesting objects, that's fine, but I feel that this section could benefit from expansion, especially seeing that the Milky Way passes through Canis Minor (which should get a mention).
 * Got that in and sourced....there is bugger all to write about! Not surprising as Milky Way would obscure galaxies but surprising there aren't more interesting nebulae etc. Oh well.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than these, looks good! StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion/closing comments - thanks muchly all for your input. I'm looking at the article now and feeling much happier as it is looking much more solid and professional looking. The one niggle I agree (naming of characteristics section) is a bigger issue for the astronomy wikiproject to tackle I think, and invite all to comment there at Featured article candidates/Canis Minor/archive1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)