Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Barnard's Star

If you were being really picky, this is what you could look at.
 * 'has likely received' - is this what is called a weasel word?
 * Source says: "star has probably received more observational attention than any other M dwarf." Point taken about weasel words, but if a source is less than absolute then the page needs to be.
 * 'attractive location' - a bit like the Hitchhikers' Guide (The sun was described as being "in the unfashionable western spiral arm".) I think its convenience for astromers would be a better reason. and the fact Barnard's Star is mentioned in the Hitchhiker's Guide makes 'attractive' sound even odder.
 * Changed.
 * 'apparently erroneous' I think we can say now there are no planets of the size that Van Kamp predicted so is 'apparently' needed? Is an erroneous discovery possible anyway? Perhaps it is only an erroneous claim to have discovered planets.
 * Changed.
 * 'extrasolar' seems excessive. 'nearby' would put it more simply.  I also wondered about 'rapid, unmanned travel'. 'It has been suggested as one of the nearby stars that could be targeted for exploration by unmanned probes' also seems simpler. 'Unmanned travel' sounds odd to me because travel has human connotations.
 * Changed first. I think "rapid, unmanned travel" is fine; this mimics the source as well.
 * 'Periodic changes' is plural, the verb should agree. I tend to throw in more 'thats' and a good place might be after 'indicate'
 * Indeed.
 * ''quiescent with little dramatic activity' is tautologous
 * Tweaked.
 * To me as a non-astronomer 'easily noted' is odd. If I have to stand around for a lifetime to see it shift by a quarter of the Moon's diameter, I think 'easy' would be an exaggeration.  I guess it easily shows up in blink comparators but the average person would not think it easy.
 * Hm. Easy refers to fact that the full angular diameter of the Moon is large enough to be seen. I dropped it.
 * ARICNS is given ARCINS in reference 1
 * Changed.
 * 'bolumetric' I have already mentioned
 * It says "bolometric or absolute". Now I could have a bracket "(absolute meaning across all wavelengths)" or something, but I'm assuming that absolute alone will suffice for the reader willing to follow the link. There's a tension, obviously, b/w explaining things at length and having too many clunky parentheses.
 * 'solar' is an adjective not a noun. Suggest replacing with 'of the Sun's'.
 * "Solar" --> "solar luminosity".
 * (I wondered if the atmosphere would freeze out as well but the inverse square law would put it as if near Saturn and we know Titan has a methane atmosphere)
 * Mmm...you're going to have explain that one. The critical figure for determining how much energy would reach us is, AFAIK, absolute luminosity at 34/10000. That would put us at the equivalent of 294 AU if the stars were flipped around—out in the Kuiper belt (though that's just back of the envelope from a numbers dummy). This also mimics the source.
 * 'pc' could have a link to parsec and 'ly' to light year
 * Both are linked in the first paragraph.
 * 'along with' - why 'along'?
 * That just "feels" colloquial. Changed anyhow, as less is more.
 * Why just a semi-colon after 'planetary companion'? It makes a very long sentence.
 * A semicolon indicates two sentences.
 * 'planetary suggestion for a Jupiter mass planet' is duplication. Could you have a planetary suggestion for anything else?
 * Check.
 * 'proved to undermine' would be simpler as 'undermined'
 * Changed.
 * Suggest replacing 'utilizing' with the simpler and informative 'also using'. It emphasises that the work was at the same place
 * Changed.
 * 'putative confirmation' is odd. Something is either a confirmation or it is not
 * Hm. If I'm claiming something to be a confirmation then it's a putative confirmation... Changed to "supposed" as more colloquial.
 * 'Van de Kamp planet controversy' is three nouns in nose-to-tail collision
 * I just removed Van de Kamp.
 * '50 years, ie within a human lifetime'? I think 'ie' helps
 * OK
 * 'Jovian orbit'. I know what you mean but it seems to say that 'I know the adjective for Jupiter is Jovian'
 * I think I'll leave this. Yes, the adjective for Jupiter is Jovian—perhaps the reader will learn that for the first time.
 * I prefer not to end sentences with prepositions. 'in which category' would be better though perhaps prissy.
 * This sentence was poor in general; changed.
 * 'space motion' still unexplained. Why would it change radial velocity?
 * This has been difficult, because reading around shows various descriptors: true or absolute motion, true or absolute velocity, space motion or velocity. To answer the question as best as able, the radial velocity (movement directly towards) will change in value as the over-all motion of the other star causes it to change location. Or something like that.
 * It sounds as if 'Absolute parallax' and 'absolute magnitude' hadn't been measured before and 'deduced' sounds more like a hunch
 * "Deduced" --> "refined".
 * 'can not ' would be better as 'could not'. Do you mean types of planet?  (Rocky, gas-giant, plutonic?) or do you mean size and orbital distance?
 * I think the present simple is correct but, erk, "cannot" should be one word. "Do you mean size and orbital distance"—I think this should be obvious, as "more simply" implies you're unpacking the preceding sentence.
 * Perhaps 'terrestrial planets are still a possibility but would be difficult to detect' would be better.
 * Changed. Marskell 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Use these suggestions as you will. Good luck JMcC 08:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)