Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Circinus (constellation)/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 Ian Rose 10:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Circinus (constellation)[edit]

Featured article candidates/Circinus (constellation)/archive1

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) + Keilana (talk · contribs) [reply]

A couple of us have worked on this and buffed it to what we consider a level equivalent to the other constellation articles, of which there are a growing number to compare with. Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I think the prose needs a little more work. I have made a few edits to illustrate my misgivings (which you can revert if not helpful). I find expressions like "NGC 5823 is found in the amateur telescope" odd to my ear. Perhaps "NGC 5823 can be found by using an amateur telescope" might be better. There is also redundancy such as "to the observer", and the use of ugly, technical words such as "visualized" when ordinary words such as "seen" could be used. This is an engaging article, it might be improved by using less astronomy jargon, and not assuming the readers are astronomers. Graham Colm (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Graham, I just looked through the edits you made and they were all quite helpful. I'll give it another pass to tone down the jargon. Thank you! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Parutakupiu[edit]

Comment: The general comment I can make is that the prose needs to be vastly improved so that criterion 1a. is met. The technical jargon is already quite hard to grasp by a non-expert, so the task becomes even more difficult if the prose is not clear and high standard. Although I can point a few things, changes are needed throughout the article.

I concede I find these astronomy articles alot trickier to make prose accessible and engaging than other articles I work on... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could help here and there, if you want. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that would be great! And please strike everything you are happy with so far.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've copyedited as best as I could. I would ask you to please confirm that with my changes, no reference was misplaced. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They look intact ~~at first glance~~ - it becomes tricky when a space is added or subtracted before a para, then monitoring individual changes gets lost....only thing is the 12 light years and 10 arcseconds...I am tempted to swap their positions but maybe not...not sure that is an improvement either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I leave that to your decision. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I understand that "Slightly variable" refers to variable star, but for those that don't know, you should place a link here (the first instance), instead of linked further on in the next sentence.~~

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Link "Supernova". Plus, does a supernova "explode"? Or does it "occur"?~~

linked - by definition they "explode" which I figure is a more vivid and engaging word than "occur"...do you prefer the latter word? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's awkward, it's like saying "an explosion exploded"... but I guess you can leave as is. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

aah ok, yeah I think I might change it...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"and was recorded by Chinese observers" → "and this event was recorded by Chinese observers".~~

changed to ", which.." Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Circinus also has one spiral galaxy of note; discovered in 1977, the Circinus Galaxy is the closest Seyfert galaxy to the Milky Way." → "Circinus also houses one notable spiral galaxy, the Circinus Galaxy. Discovered in 1977, it is the closest Seyfert galaxy to the Milky Way."

changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~No need to link the second "Milky Way" occurrence.~~

de-linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I fail to see any mythological reference in the "History and mythology" section.~~

good point - just a standard heading from other constellation articles...which have considerably more.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Switch hyphens with minus signs in "-55.43° and -70.62°". Apply throughout article accordingly.~~

got 'em all (I think...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Does "Rapidly oscillating Ap (RoAp) star" need to start with a capital letter?~~

lower case, missed second one... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is the name of the Alpha Circini companion?~~

I can pretty well guess what it should be...i.e. Alpha Circini B...but I think I'd like to find a source which states that....~~wil get back soon.~~ ~~Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)~~I'm a bit stumped by this as I can't find any mention of it at all in any other sources, nor is it clarified in SIMBAD. There are loads of articles covering Alpha circini but they are all examining the pulsations of the main star. I am tempted to remove it but Jim Kaler is a pretty respected writer of astronomy... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bit of research myself and found nowhere a name for the companion... apart from "companion". Probably it's the current knowledge status about that dimmer component. No need to remove this portion if it's referenced by a reliable source. I was just wondering if it didn't have a name because the editor forgot to put it... Parutakupiu (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this occasionally - some stars have companions about which little is known and they don't have a name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"discernible by small telescopes[10] with a separation of 5.7 arcseconds.[7]" Place ref 10 as recommended per MOS:REF.~~

moved Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Link light-year, orange dwarf and AU.~~

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Display meteor shower velocity also in mph within parentheses (use {{convert}})~~

astronomy articles don't usually use imperial units at all - would look funny having some in some spots... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Link "long-period comet".~~

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~The infobox shows unmatching data, namely magnitude of brighest star (3.18 vs 3.19 in text) and meteor shower (none vs. Alpha Circinids in lede)~~

whoops, fixed them Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Be sure that date format is consistent in the prose and references.~~

Parutakupiu (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

took me a while to find the noncomplying date formats....fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the infobox, removing some empty parameters or those with "zero" values (which was reverted in the meantime, ok...), and I noticed that the "best visible month" stated there is June. Isn't it July?

"best visible" is a bit arbitrary given its far southern location....need to think about this Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really kind of arbitrary but I'd go with the month where it culminates at 9pm, so July. Also I think the zero values are important - it's good to know that there aren't any bright or nearby stars and people won't see that if the parameter's removed. Just my 2 cents. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it June or July? Parutakupiu (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed it to July. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~The compass image is nice and all, but not extremely necessary and it just compresses two (already small) sections against the infobox. I'd drop it.~~

we only stuck it in as a suggestion at GA - happy to lose it as cramming not good.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not define specific width for the images. Let them show the more consistent default size.~~

Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. From my assessment on the fulfillment of each of the FA criteria, I believe this article is in a good shape. After making an intervention of my own, I think the prose has been largely improved (1a) , although it lacks the evaluation of further, more professional, reviewers. All the important aspects of this constellation are well covered (1b) and appropriately sourced (1c), and lack of neutrality (1d) and editing stability (1e) were never major factors. Regarding style, the lead does provide a good summary of what's to come (2a) and the content is adequately divided, with separate sections for the history and location of the constellation, for stars and other objects (2b). Regarding the format of general references and inline citations (2c), I noticed no irregularity or inconsistency. The article contains a suitable number of pertinent images, all of which have a correct usage and a proper caption (3). It is not lengthy, but one of its largest and detailed sections ("Stars") has a link to a stand-alone list with all the stellar components of this constellation and related information, thus fulfilling criterium 4. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks/much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - base on Parutakipu's review, the article meets all FA criteria, and a cursory reading by myself shows that the prose is well-written and the article has solid, high-quality sources. Congrats to Casliber and Keilana for bringing this up to FA. Wer900 • talk 01:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Parutakupiu had mentioned that he wanted a more professional evaluation. Although not an astronomer myself, I am quite interested in the field and have authored articles related to astronomy, astrophysics, and other space sciences, and I can say with confidence that the article is factually sound. The prose covers the references well, and I think that therefore Parutakupiu's doubts are now resolved. Wer900 • talk 01:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Circinus_IAU.svg: suggested linking IAU

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beta_Circinus.jpg: possible to translate the file page?

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:NGC_5823_in_Cir.jpg: the file on it.wiki seems to use the equivalent of PD-self, while we use CC-1.0 - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow - they both seem to mention "public domain" in their licencing.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template on commons is CC-0, so they seem to be consistent. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~and comments~~ from Jim Obviously FA standard, just a couple of minor things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I suggest links to polygon, Jupiter and Venus~~

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is visible with an amateur telescope — some idea of typical size would be helpful

I couldn't find anything specific for the dark nebula but did find that the reflection nebula component requires averted vision to see. Generally a "large" amateur telescope has an aperture of more than 12 inches or so, but there's really no specific designation and I don't want to stray over the border into OR. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Multiple refs to one sentence should be in numerical order in text~~

reordered Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.