Wikipedia:Peer review/PSR B1937+21/archive1

PSR B1937+21
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think that while the article is fairly complete, it is not perfect, and another set of eyes would be very useful. I would like to see it reach at least good article status, and perhaps even use this process to try to help the article reach featured status.

Thanks, James McBride (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Prose is great, sources are great, flow is good. My only suggestion would be to add a star map showing the location. Even without that, I think this is ready for GAN. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and the suggestion. I am not sure what to do regarding a star map though other than just take the image from the Vulpecula constellation article. Is that what you had in mind, or is there something else I might do? James McBride (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More along the lines of starting with that star map and having a dot on it showing the relative position of the pulsar. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 05:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Is there something other than PP3 (which was how the Vulpecula map was generated) that you know of that Wikipedians use? I looked in to using that, and it seems like something of a hassle to get installed and use to generate a single plot. James McBride (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing fancy needed. Just take the current PNG and add a dot to it in your favorite image editing software. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that this looks very good and think it is at least at GA quality, and probably would do well at FAC with a few tweaks. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * et al. is Latin and is usually italicized
 * The disambiguation link finder finds two dab links (tools in the top right corner)
 * I am not an astronomer, so I do not know if this is comprehensive or not. What is there reads well and is clear and does a good job explaining technical things in laymen's terms. Still it seems to me that there are at least two things that probably need to be added to the article to insure comprehensiveness (a FA criterion)
 * I would explain the origin of the name - I imagine this only needs a sentence or two and it seems likely that PSR means pulsar and the 19 and 21 seem like they have something to do with the first two digits of the Right ascension and declination, but I would still explain it.
 * I also think the article would benefit from a brief explanation of how pulsars are formed. I think this could be a short paragraph, but think it would help clarify some of the rest of the article.
 * Would File:Pulsar schematic.svg be a useful image to add?
 * I think the internet refs need an access date added per WP:CITE (unless there is some sort of WikiProject:Astronomy guideline on this
 * I also like it when all of the authors of articles are listed (and not just et al.)
 * There are a few places that seem to need references - This implied that if no external mechanism had accelerated the pulsar's spin rate, PSR B1937+21 had to be very young. or this The data are consistent with a companion having a mass similar to Ceres and located at 2.71 astronomical units from the pulsar, but data over a longer period of time are required in order to verify the proposed companion.
 * This is very useful, thank you! I addressed some of your first points already, and will address the rest in the next few days. I have one question though. I think the only web citation is to the ATNF database, which does have an accessdate. All of the rest of the references are journal articles. James McBride (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think when there is an external link in the ref, the access date is generally provided (so for example when a newspaper article available online is cited, the print information and the URL are both given, and the access date for the web version is given). Again there may be Astronomy article conventions I do not know that do not require this, but it may be one of those things asked for at GAN or FAC. Glad to be of help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Review by RJHall It looks pretty good. However, some of the wording could perhaps be tightened up a little per Ton's criteria.

Thank you for developing this article.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The remarkable properties..." 'Remarkable' here seems possibly to be edging toward hyperbole and may be considered unencyclopedic to some. You could quote it, if you have a source.
 * In "...that pulsars are actually highly...", I think the 'actually' is unnecessary here.
 * In "...life of a massive star", this might be considered unnecessary vagueness because all stars may be considered massive. Perhaps list a minimum mass instead.
 * In the "Background" section, you might add that the magnetic poles are not necessarily aligned with the poles of rotation (as per the illustration).
 * The 'scintars' term should be wikilinked, per WP:JARGON.
 * In "Even so, the initial search plan..." the 'Even so' may be unnecessary.
 * In "Backer finally determined" the 'finally' is unnecessary.
 * In the "Spin down rate", it may help to briefly explain why pulsars spin down.
 * In "centrifugal force overcomes the self-gravity of the pulsar and it is ripped apart", would it be ripped apart or just shed matter (during collapse) until the two forces were in balance?
 * Perhaps I am missing something, but to me the example presented with, "A simple indication of this is that assuming...," doesn't seem to demonstrate the issue. I.e. it is just used to give the equatorial velocity, rather than comparing the forces.
 * In "The exact value of..." the 'exact' appears unnecessary.
 * For the "Such a low age for the pulsar was at odds..." paragraph, I think it is important to explain the connection between SNRs/X-ray sources and the formation of pulsars. It would also help to explain to the reader why the SNR/X-rays sources would need to be in the vicinity to justify the low age estimate for the pulsar.
 * Per "65,000 janskys", usually some fussy person will come along and convert entries like this into SI units. For stability, I find it helps to list both values with one of them in parens. (Example: see the lead of Cyg X-1.)
 * "As of 2009, it remains..." Please disambiguate "it" here.
 * "As the first discovered... ...as it provided..." Which of the two 'as's is appropriate?
 * Thanks for this list of suggestions! I'll have to take a closer look at that style guidelines articles soon. I think I addressed all of your points except for the one about the centrifugal force. I'll look more in to that point later. In a couple of cases, I just eliminated the issues. For instance, scintar does not need an article, as it was discarded soon after it was suggested. Also, I debated the "simple indication" for awhile before adding it, and six months later, I do not think it adds anything. James McBride (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed all issues now. Thank you again for the extensive comments. James McBride (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. Glad I could be of some help.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)