Talk:Alpheratz/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA. I will be posting comments below. I would like to say that this seems like a well written and well referenced article with obviously a lot of care put into its development. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding in the lead should be confined to the beginning of the article and not scattered throughout. I realize that these are alternate names. I do not know how best to resolve this problem in the article.
I am wondering if, under System, the last paragraph should not come first as it explains what a system is.
I think that G-type star should be piped as one link to G-type star, rather than have two adjacent links, one to G-type and the other to star, as G V star link explains that it is a star
"The double is optical and not a binary star." What does this mean, as I thought that you explained in the article that it was a binary star?
Variability of primary - this is the first mention of primary. What is meant by this? (Excuse my ignorance!)
It is best to avoid the passive voice, as it "It is thought that these peculiarities..."; it is better to say who thought this. Another example, "so is thought to be...".

Taking your comments in order:

I rewrote the lead to confine boldface to the first sentence.
It seemed clearest to develop the facts about the system in the order of their discovery. I have attempted to clarify the meaning of system in the lead.
The luminosity class of the G-type star is not known, so it would be misleading to link to G V star, which only discusses stars of spectral type G and luminosity class V. It could be e.g. a giant G-type star of luminosity class III.
There are three stars discussed in the article. The first two, A (mass 3.6 solar masses) and Aa (mass 1.8 solar masses) are in close physical proximity. The third, B (mass unknown, spectral type G), appears near to A and Aa on the sky but is not physically associated with them. I have rewritten the article to attempt to clarify this point.
Primary means the bigger or brighter star of the pair, in this case, A. I have attempted to clarify this in the article.
I have rephrased the passages in question.

Spacepotato (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

since Andromeda (constellation) does not give etymology, I believe there should be some explanation here in the Etymology section.
what is a "mercury-manganese star"
I suggest splitting "system": the first paragraph should form an "Observation" and the rest form a separate "Characteristics" section
I strongly suggest using the {{cite journal}} template which will format the referrences much better.
"Accessed on line" why is online two separate words? Anyways, I suggest using "Retrieved on". Btw, the citejournal template will automatically format these refs anyways.

Nergaal (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

I linked spectral lines; if that is inappropriate feel free to remove it.
The above suggestions by Nergaal seem like good ones and I see that you have implemented some of them; altogether, the article looks good.
I recommend you consider using Wikipedia:Citation templates as suggested. It gives a uniform appearance to the citations which is part of the MoS criteria. It provides a cite journal, cite web, cite book etc. format so that all of the details are filled in correctly. It may seem like a bother at first, but a consistent format is required and it will profit you overall to become familiar with using templates for references in this and future articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking these comments out of order:

The article Andromeda gives the etymology of Andromeda in the first sentence. However, I have expanded the etymology system.
As stated in the section Chemical peculiarities, mercury-manganese stars are a class of chemically peculiar stars which have excesses of mercury, manganese, and other elements in their atmospheres.
Re splitting the "System" section, see my comment 2 above.
On line is a customary spelling for this adverb. It was more common a few years ago but has declined recently due to the trend in English to close up and de-hyphenate compounds.
The references are currently in a consistent format. To quote Wikipedia:Citing sources, "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged."

Spacepotato (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Those were just suggestions.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]