Wikipedia:Peer review/Star/archive2

Star
A prior peer review is available at archive1.

This article is a twice-failed FAC. However I believe that the concerns that were raised during the FACs have been addressed. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a close look at this article and see if you can spot anything else that might hinder a third FAC attempt. Thank you! &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some notes &mdash; I wrote this while reading random parts of the article, so they're not in order:
 * The disambiguation link problem I mentioned in the FAC was not a reference to the OtherUses-style templates, which is fine; I was talking about wikilinks in the article text that lead to disambiguation pages. Check the links in the article and change any reroute link to disambiguation pages to the correct article.
 * I just went through nearly every wiki-link in the article and addressed the disambiguation links. So I think that's done. &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * The "Dimensions" section may be misnamed. As a layperson, I would assume that the dimensions of a star would be the radius, circumference, volume, etc. Is luminosity typically referred to as a dimension of a star or would "characteristic" be a better term?
 * I changed it to "Units of measurements". Sorry, I'm used to thinking of dimensions in terms other than length. &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * I've also used dimensions in that sense, just looking out for the casual reader.  Pagra shtak  20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Dimensions" section is rather short - I would expect such a section to include information about typical or mean star sizes, but star size seems to be covered in a later section. Related information like this should be gathered in one place.
 * This section was deliberately intended to clarify the units of measurement before any discussion of star masses, radii, and so forth. I wanted to get that out of the way before hitting the heart of the article, so there would be no confusion. I'd really prefer that this not be all-encompassing section on star sizes. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that the section is called "Units of measurement", I don't think this is a problem.  Pagra shtak  20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Solar radius is denoted with a capital $$R$$, but the solar radius article uses a lowercase $$r$$; which is correct?
 * The capital $$R$$ is the convention that I have seen in pretty much every astronomy article I've examined that uses the solar radius. See, for example, the introduction to http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v500n2/985175/sc1.html#sc1 . I'm not sure why the solar radius uses a lower-case $$r$$. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice both "kilometer" and "kilometre" being used in the article.
 * They're all kilometre now. &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * Star formation occurs in molecular clouds, ... and then three sentences later: Star formation begins with gravitational instability inside a molecular cloud, ...
 * I tweaked the text slightly. Otherwise I'm unclear about the concern. The first was an introductory paragraph to the section. The second paragraph is the actual mechanics. What is preferable? &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's better now. It's a little jarring to the reader to encounter such a similar phrase that close together, as the reader may not realize that the introductory paragraph overlaps with the next section.  Pagra shtak  20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * The measurement "Gyr" is used - clicking on this link takes me to the article on year. I can deduce that Gyr stands for gigayear, but the year article does not mention gigayear. This is more of a problem with the year article, but it still confuses the average reader who most likely has not encountered gigayears often.
 * The Gyr was removed yesterday. I have a problem with the use of the word billion, which has an ambiguity. But apparently that's not an issue for others. So the article just uses billion consistently now. :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The duration that a star spends on the main sequence depends primarily on the amount of fuel it has to burn and the rate at which it burns that fuel. In other words, its mass and luminosity. - This sentence tells me thatm for stars, mass=amount of fuel. However, iron contributes to the mass of a star and is not fuel.
 * When the star is first formed, the iron content is negligible. Iron is created as the very last product of the life cycle, and only after the star has left the main sequence. So yes, the statement is true. I'm not clear why it is an issue. &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * Now that you've clarified "initial mass", this makes more sense.  Pagra shtak  20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well really it's roughly the same amount of mass anyway, only converted into different elements. There is some mass loss due to the stellar wind, particularly in massive stars, and a tiny fraction of the overall mass is converted into energy. But I'm glad the rewording works for you. Thanks. :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The process of stars creating heavier metals seems to be covered twice.
 * Yes. I think it is appropriate that the "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways" section also covers the specific nuclear reactions. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not too crazy about covering it twice, but it may be the best way given the different treatments. This will probably be ok with the addition of a link, I'll look into that in a second.  Pagra shtak  20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Mass can also be measured directly for stars in binary systems or through microlensing. - This sentence is a little confused.
 * I attempted to clarify the text. &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * Eruptive variables that experience sudden increases in luminosity because of flares or mass ejection events. - Where is the verb in this sentence?
 * I tweaked the text slightly.
 *  Pagra shtak  18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thorough review! &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)