Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corona Borealis/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Corona Borealis

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I had some problems buffing this article early on but it has come together nicely I feel - it has had input from a professional astronomer (Mike Peel (talk · contribs)) whose queries I have addressed apart from some header classification that would need larger discussion as all the other constellation FAs are like this one. But anyway, I found this one interesting to put together, so come take a look and tell me what needs further tweaking...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

ST11

• Not sure it is necessary to mention Corona Australis in the lead, as it is only tangentially related, apart from the name.

Hmm, I'll reserve judgement on that one...my preference would be to leave it in (but not strongly) and will remove if a consensus builds here to do so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely not a big thing at all. I could still support with the mention still there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do we really need to mention how the exoplanets were detected in the lead? I think it would be nice to mention maybe ADS 9731 instead, as one of the few sextuple stars known.

Good point - tweaked lead now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• For the HCB Great Wall, is the redshift of 1.6–2.1 a range over its length or is it an uncertainty?

aaah good catch - the GRBs mapped clustered at redshifts 1.6–2.1, however the second paper concludes the the redshift is ~2. Tweaked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I definitely think MS 1603.6+2600 (UW CrB) is worth mentioning somewhere; an X-ray binary away from the Milky Way is always quite interesting, especially one such as this with somewhat strange properties.

made the stub - just tryng to write get my head around the papers and it up now added it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• 3C 332 is probably worth a mention as well, as a well-studied active galaxy.

I'm having trouble locating a recent reference that discusses it in detail - SIMBAD has 202 refs but most are about lots of galaxies.... :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't really a big thing either. I only think it's worth a mention because of the dearth of interesting deep-sky objects in this constellation, but it's not required.

...and I think that's it! StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – Overall it looks good and I think it's just about ready for FA status. I found a few minor issues, which I attempted to fix. Here are my unresolved concerns:

My concerns were addressed. Thank you Praemonitus (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• "with a luminosity approximately 102831 times": this value doesn't look approximate since it has 6 digits of precision.

oops - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Corona Borealis contains no bright deep-sky objects." What is "bright" in this context? Visible to the naked eye?

source doesn't specify - very few deep-sky objects are visible to the naked eye though so sentence not very helpful. But is nice to have some sort of introductiry sentence here. Will see how to tweak Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• In the references, 'Ian Ridpath' is not in the same form as the other authors (last name, first name).

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, and the Mirror caption is missing a closing parenthesis. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

got 'em both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment — ...as its main stars form a semicircular arc. Instead of "main stars", could you say "brightest stars"? --Siddhant (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

yes though they are not strictly the seven brightest stars they are almost, and it is more understandable than "main stars" so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Question — Abell 2162 is present in Corona Borealis but that's not mentioned anywhere in the article. Since it is not a significant galaxy cluster, should there be a "List of galaxy clusters in Corona Borealis" like we have a List of stars in Corona Borealis? A related question is, where can I find a list of all Abell object if given a constellation? Is there such a table available on the Internet somewhere? Should such a list be copied onto Wikipedia? Oh, and List of Abell clusters is incomplete with regards to this. --Siddhant (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Some stars don't get into the article either. The page can't be exaustive. Feel free to expandList of Abell clusters! (in fact, I've begun doing this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry Cas but despite this having been listed in FAC urgents we seem to have had no new commentary in almost a month, so I'll archive it and perhaps you can give it a fresh start in a couple of weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough - usually I find this means the prose is a bit boring/inacessible in places, so will get some eyes on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 11:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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