Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sagitta/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 November 2020 [1].
Sagitta[edit]
This article is about a small constellation with some interesting things in it. I think it is of the same quality as the other constellation articles that are now Featured. Let me know what I can fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt[edit]
Just a few things.
- It might be useful to emphasise in the lead that Sagitta has no connection with Sagittarius (thus, it is not an arrow being shot by the archer, at least not by Sagittarius).
- " Delta, Epsilon, Zeta and Theta Sagittae are multiple stars whose components can be seen in small telescopes. " I might add "each" before either "are" or "multiple".
- "having exhausted its core hydrogen and now burning it in a shell.[15]" I might add "outer" before "shell" for clarity.
- "the spike" Is this the arrowhead?
- My guess is it is on the side of the arrow based on the star layout but I don't know. We have been renovating so all many of my books are in boxes and I don't remember this book actually specifying what hte damn spike was... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Bayer's depiction of the arrow has a diamond-shaped "spike" near the centre of the shaft. The two stars δ and ζ lie on this, α, β, and ε lie on the "tail", γ on the shaft near the head, η at the base of the head, and θ on the head of the arrow. The depiction doesn't make any great effort to follow the positions of the stars, and certainly nothing like the modern line depictions. Lithopsian (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- My guess is it is on the side of the arrow based on the star layout but I don't know. We have been renovating so all many of my books are in boxes and I don't remember this book actually specifying what hte damn spike was... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Check consistency on "light-years" vs. "light years".
Comments Support from Harrias[edit]
NB: I am competing in the WikiCup and will claim points for this review.
- "Right ascension: 19.8333h" is given in the infobox, but I can't see that number in the text. I assume it is the middle of the figures given, "18h 57.2m and 20h 20.5m", but I don't understand why they don't both give the same information.
- Same query for the Declination.
- "Quandrant: NQ4" also only appears in the infobox as far as I can tell.
- Why use a different rounding value 79.9 / 80 for the Area between the article and the infobox?
- Per MOS:LANG, foreign-language terms, such as "Oistos", "al-sahm", "Sham" etc. should be in a {{lang}} template.
- But take care with WP:BADITALICS on proper nouns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- "The Arrow is located beyond the north border of Aquila, the Eagle." Because the last sentence dealt with the mythical arrow, it needs to be made clear the article is now talking about the constellation again.
- Similarly, I found it confusing in the next sentence, that starts "Amateur polymath Richard Hinckley Allen proposed.." that it switches between links to Arcadia, a place, Cygnus and Lyra, constellations, and then back to Herculea, a place, without any indication that some are places on Earth being referred to, and some are constellations.
- "..and German astronomers Friedrich Wilhelm Argelander, and Eduard Heis.." Move the second comma after "Heis".
- "..and it is now equated to HR 7705." What does this mean?
- I'm not sure what point that entire sentence is trying to make. Several of the stars are multiples of one sort or another. There doesn't seem to be anything special about this one, or about it being designated HR 7705. Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- "..of spectral type M0III.." "..of spectral type M2 II.." "..of spectral class G1 II.." Is the first intentionally "MOIII", or should it be "MO III" to match the style of the others?
- "331-million year-old" There should also be a hyphen after million.
- "..of spectral type K2III.." Similar question to before.
- Be consistent about whether to group or not group 4-digit numbers: for example, "2,329", "5,100" and "2,576" vs "4000", "3500" and "7900".
Otherwise, a good, interesting article. Although essentially a technical subject, the article explains things as well as can be expected. Nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments from SG[edit]
- Cas, could you relocate the first image so it doesn't sandwich with the info box?
- Is this two different formats for plus or minus? that has swollen to 18.37+0.65
−0.88 its diameter. It is 580±10 light-years distant.
- Why is illustrated in infobox italicized? are defined by a polygon of twelve segments (illustrated in infobox).
- Check wikilinking throughout; eg, light-years is not linked on first occurrence.
- Don't start sentences with a number (there are multiple instances, sample, 1.392±0.047 times as massive as the Sun with 1.535)
- I'm struggling to find these. I don't think they've been edited away recently, but the 1.392 for example isn't at the start of a sentence, and I can't find other numbers at the start of sentences. Did you mean something different to what I'm looking for? Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am finding several formatting oddities, resulting from the software. So I see what happened here. The plus or minus formatting is causing extra space between lines, which made me think that what looked like a new line was the start of a new paragraph. I wonder why all those odd templates can't be made to fit within the standard line height. This is also very weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to find these. I don't think they've been edited away recently, but the 1.392 for example isn't at the start of a sentence, and I can't find other numbers at the start of sentences. Did you mean something different to what I'm looking for? Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Check named refs- this one occurs repeatedly: Brown, A. G. A.; et al. (Gaia collaboration) (August 2018). "Gaia Data Release 2: Summary of the contents and survey properties". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 616. A1. arXiv:1804.09365. Bibcode:2018A&A...616A...1G. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051. Gaia DR2 record for this source at VizieR.
- They're all different, or should be. The VizieR link is to the particular database record for each star. The cited journal paper is the same in each case. Lithopsian (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, ha ... so then I suggest that you put the VizieR link first, then add "as cited at" Brown ... etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- They're all different, or should be. The VizieR link is to the particular database record for each star. The cited journal paper is the same in each case. Lithopsian (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Check for incomplete citations; example, this has no date: "CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos". m.cnn.com. Retrieved 2020-01-09.
- What is your citation style for et al? Brown, for example, lists one author plus et al, while others have a string of authors, example, Crepp.
- This would be better formatted using cite press release.
- This is listed as "Cited texts" but I can't decipher where, and it uses a different author format than the other citations: Ian Ridpath and Wil Tirion (2007). Stars and Planets Guide, Collins, London. ISBN 978-0-00-725120-9. Princeton University Press, Princeton. ISBN 978-0-691-13556-4.
- This is listed as "Cited texts" but it is used only once in the article; would it be easier to make a direct citation rather than use short form? Wagman, Morton (2003). Lost Stars: Lost, Missing and Troublesome Stars from the Catalogues of Johannes Bayer, Nicholas Louis de Lacaille, John Flamsteed, and Sundry Others. Blacksburg, Virginia: The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-939923-78-6.
- There is a mixed date style in citations (do you want me to run script to convert them?).
- Kunitzsch, Paul (2002). "Albumasariana" (PDF). Annali Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. OPAR L'Orientale Open Archive. p. 4. Retrieved 30 January 2020.
- "CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos". m.cnn.com. Retrieved 2020-01-09.
- WP:NBSP on HR 7705; check throughout? Theta was in fact three stars, and it is now equated to HR 7705
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
All images are freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Praemonitus[edit]
Support: Overall it's a good article, especially for such an insignificant constellation. Only a couple of fussy things bugged me a little:
- The article gets a little anal retentive regarding margin of error. Unless an error range is a significant fraction (say ≥10%) of the base value, does it really add much to present it in this general context? I mean, for most readers "2.5±1.8 billion years old" is useful, but "1.08±0.04 times its mass" probably isn't.
- The references include a mix of full author listings and short lists with 'et al' at the end.
But these really aren't enough to stop me adding my support. Nice work! Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
Spotchecks not done
- "It was included among the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd century astronomer Ptolemy" - source?
- I added this in the body with a reference, so the mention in the lead is now supported. Lithopsian (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Sagitta can be seen from every location on Earth except within the Antarctic circle. " - source?
- There is a cited sentence in the body about it being entirely visible from the 69th parallel south northwards (antarctic circle = 66th parallel), but I just removed the sentence as I don't recall seeing anything more accessible or specific in guidebook that I can source. Not that big a deal anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Two star systems in Sagitta have Jupiter-like planets" - the text identifies one with a Jupiter-like planet, but the other identifies only a planet much larger than Jupiter - is this planet "Jupiter-like"?
- Some of the details in the infobox also appear to be unsourced
- deprecated material removed. Some is in all constellation articles and predates my involvement, but material (like lead) replicates material sourced in body of text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Still seeing details here that I can't find sourced in the text, such as when specifically it is best visible. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is tricky - in the days of yore, all 88 constellations had this info added, but the only book we can find words it a bit differently (now added). I could change the infobox but then that makes a disparity with all the other constellation infoboxes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Still seeing details here that I can't find sourced in the text, such as when specifically it is best visible. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- deprecated material removed. Some is in all constellation articles and predates my involvement, but material (like lead) replicates material sourced in body of text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- FN1: I can't verify a publication with this exact title, although I do see a few similar - can you double-check?
- This is listed here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The title listed there does not match the title listed here (now FN4). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now formatted as a cite journal, fixed journal, publisher, and volume, removed accessdate. Title seemed correct? Lithopsian (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Meant journal title - now correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now formatted as a cite journal, fixed journal, publisher, and volume, removed accessdate. Title seemed correct? Lithopsian (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The title listed there does not match the title listed here (now FN4). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is listed here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Be consistent in whether locations are included for books, and if so how these are formatted
- Be consistent in how author names are formatted
- Be consistent in how book titles are capitalized
- FN4: page?
- Fn6 and similar: publishers aren't required for web sources, is there a reason to specify self-published in this case?
- FN9: provided wikilink goes to a rock band, which I expect is not what you're meaning to cite
- weird...it's going to where it is supposed t be going now for me.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ref # changed? I found a wikilink to The Constellations, currently in FN1. Removed, this is not the correct publication. Apparently not a journal at all, just an IAU web page. Fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- IAU is a publisher, not a work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now uses publisher field instead of website. Lithopsian (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- IAU is a publisher, not a work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ref # changed? I found a wikilink to The Constellations, currently in FN1. Removed, this is not the correct publication. Apparently not a journal at all, just an IAU web page. Fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- weird...it's going to where it is supposed t be going now for me.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Use a consistent format for retrieval dates
- Aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Er, no, it's not - in FN2 we have 2020-10-20, but then in FN4 we have 30 January 2020, and in FN48 we have 9 Jan 2020. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- One of these was my recent edit. I fixed them both. Lithopsian (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Er, no, it's not - in FN2 we have 2020-10-20, but then in FN4 we have 30 January 2020, and in FN48 we have 9 Jan 2020. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
- FN31: given work title is a publisher, and publication date is missing
- The website and publisher both called AAVSO, so not sure what I should do here. date added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- AAVSO should be listed as publisher and work title omitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The website and publisher both called AAVSO, so not sure what I should do here. date added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- FN38: don't repeat publisher as work title, and why is this spelled out and linked here when it wasn't in 31?
- FN49 is missing author
- FN50 is misformatted and incomplete
Stopping there and oppose pending citation cleanup - have to say this isn't up to your usual standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- FN48, 49: inconsistent date format
- FN49: just use
|publisher=CNN
and get rid of work title
- FN52 includes work title as part of the title, and the title doesn't match the human-readable one at the source site. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed page title. Lithopsian (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, can I assume that your comments have all been satisfactorily addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Two pending issues: AAVSO is still being used in a work title parameter rather than publisher. The other is the uncited infobox issue, which I'm not super happy with, but I'm not going to oppose over that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just FYI, I've changed two citations so AAVSO is the publisher and added some refs in the infobox. Lithopsian (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim[edit]
This has been well picked over my now, and the comments below are more suggestions than must-dos, so your call
- Although Sagitta is an ancient constellation — well, the stars are definitely ancient, but perhaps make it clearer that is the naming that dates to antiquity
- The sentence has been edited. I think it is clearer now just what is old. Lithopsian (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
54 times greater. —than?
6th labor — I don't know if you intended the US spelling, but even if you did I'd prefer sixth
core hydrogen —personally, I'd invert the order of these two words
ionised buckminsterfullerene —I know it's linked, but maybe insert carbon isotope or similar helper?
- < yes, although it can technically be considered as an isotope, your wording is better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Otherwise looks pretty good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Cas, I wonder if you have overlooked my first point above, which so far has no response? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.