Talk:Coma Berenices/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 23:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking... SpinningSpark 23:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• "Three of constellation's" > Three of the constellation's
  • Done. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• This is a minor point, but do you think it is necessary to give the magnitude of the beta star to three significant figures in the lead? "Fourth magnitude" seems better for the lead to me rather than hitting the reader with precision numbers.
  • Done. Rounded all to two digits. The thing is that all three stars are of fourth magnitude, so you have to give fractions for precision. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

History

• "only modern constellation named for an historic figure" Where is that referenced to? The nearest cite is to a 2000 year old source which obviously is not legitimate for a claim on modern nomenclature.
  • Seems to be relatively easy to verify. I think one can simply check the names at 88 modern constellations to see that it's indeed so. But I can add if still needed. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Examining the constellation names and making a decision yourself amounts to WP:OR. There are disagreements (discussions?) over who is, and who is not, an historical figure. Was Hercules for instance? Well probably not, but it is not for Wikipedia to guess. Livy in his histories writes of Castor and Pollux as if they were real people. Now by the time his history gets to his own time he is undoubtedly recording real events, but the exact point where mythology changed into real history is unclear and we need an historian to tell us, not just make up our own minds (as Wikipedia editors I mean). Things like this that are arguable are things that need sources because they are challengeable, which puts it squarely in GA criterion 2b. SpinningSpark 00:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Added reference. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, but the page number is wrong. You have cited page 110, but the fact is on page 109. SpinningSpark 21:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• "when Conon presented the asterism with scholar and poet Callimachus" Not quite clear to me what that means. Did Conon coauthor something with Callimachus? Did they do a presentation to court together? Or something else?
  • Added "jointly", because he presented it together with Callimachus. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• "The asterism was also recognized by the Greek astronomer, Geminus" I think the "also" should be removed as redundant. Geminus was two centuries later, but that word is implying he had some special significance in establishing the name. If he did, it should be stated explicitly.
  • I think "also" provides continuity after Callimachus, particularly because, like Callimachus, Geminus was Greek. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be their any more in any case. 17:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is there some reason Geminus is marked as being Greek, but not Eratosthenes and Ptolemy? Why not start with "other Greek writers..." or some such construction.
  • To note that Geminus was also Greek, like Callimachus, but wouldn't mind any modification. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Resolved due to reordering. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Eratosthenes is much the earlier writer, so should go before Geminus so that Eratosthenes, Geminus, and Ptolemy are mentioned in temporal order. Either that, or give explicit dates to avoid confusion.
  • That is because Eratosthenes and Ptolemy did not recognize it as a separate constellation, while Geminus and Callimachus did. So I put first those who recognized it. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

But the thing is, you are losing the historical perspective in a section puportedly on history. Eratosthenes is a contemporary. Ptolemy is many centuries later and Geminus somewhere in between. So there is a different light on their divergence of ideas depending on the time distance between them. As an analogy, we don't expect 17th century scientists to be signing up to the quantum theory, but a 21st century scientist disagreeing with it would be highly unusual. I'm fine with you grouping them according to whether they agree with Callimachus, but in that case we need some indication of dates. SpinningSpark 00:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, reordered chronologically. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to force you to do that against your will, but actually, your current order is not chronological. Ptolemy is the latest (being in the AD era). What this really needs, regardless of the order, is some dates. Ideally, the date of the work, but if not known something vague like "(<foo>th century BC)" after the name would do, or the date range of the person's life. SpinningSpark 18:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ops, fixed. The dates are somewhat problematic because at least in Geminus they are uncertain. Brandmeister^talk 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't reallly calling for exact dates, just the century. At the moment, the last date mentioned before Ptolemy is 245 BC, but it is utterly unclear that Ptolemy is 400 years after the event and it would have been ancient history to him. SpinningSpark 17:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Added centuries. Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You didn't add a date for the even more distant Ptolemy (2nd century AD). Was that an oversight, or do you have some reason for not doing so? SpinningSpark 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought Ptolemy is relatively well-known compared to others mentioned, but now added century. Brandmeister^talk 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between having heard of him and being able to name the century he flourished in. SpinningSpark 14:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• There seems to be an implication that Eratosthenes and Ptolemy are making a distinction between asterisms and constellations. If they name it, then they have recognised it, no? So where is that different from Geminus "recognising" it?
  • Refs say that they named what they considered to be a specific part of Leo, the tail. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't quite the point I was making. So Ptolemy thinks Leo is a constellation, but he has named a part of it, Plokamos. Thus recognising a unit that is less than a constellation. So my question was is there some formal categorisation going on here, and how does that fit with our concept of an asterism? I understand if you are not able to answer this, perhaps it is unaswerable. SpinningSpark 00:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That probably requires further digging, but it would be safe to write that Ptolemy did not list Coma Berenices among his 48 constellations. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• "It and the now-obsolete.." The meaning of "it" needs to be explicit here.
  • Done. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-Western astronomy

• I'm concerned about the referencing for the Akkadian facts. Reference #15 is only a glossary entry and says nothing about "suggested". Ref #16 is a deadlink, but I'll accept it on good faith if enough bibliographic information is added to allow a printed copy to be found.
  • "Suggested" because not all sources say that the constellation was known to Akkadians. I only found one, but looks like a reliable source. Added Wayback Machine archive to the dead link. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can say "suggested" because you only found one source when that source just states it as a fact. You can say it as a fact and cite it to the source. You can cite sources that say the Akkadians did not recognise Coma Berenices as a constellation. Or, if you have some doubts, you can say author <foo> says <foobar>. Or, if you really have some doubts, don't use it at all until other sources surface. SpinningSpark 17:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Replaced with "According to some authors". Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not really an improvement. It is just inviting someone to slap a {{who}} tag on it. This sort of phrase is explicitly deprecated in WP:WTW (at WP:WEASEL) which is a GA requirement (criterion 1b). The usual solution to this kind of issue where we wish to avoid implying that the source's description is widely accepted is to write something in the form of "author/historian/astronomer/scholar says that <foo>". This says something specific without crediting it with wider acceptance. If we just don't know, then we just report what the source has said. SpinningSpark 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Brandmeister^talk 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Also on the Akkadian, is it really necessary to give the Akkadian words in that (what I assume is) cuneiform transcription form. This will mean nothing to most readers, and there is not even a wikilink to somewhere where it is explained. Can we not give the words in a more normal form (eg ref#15 has Ḫegala for instance)
  • Dunno whether it would be correct to remove transcription, it's according to the source. But wouldn't mind if replaced. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• Ref 2 does not give an ISBN number or page numbers making it difficult to identify the source or verify it. The book seems to have gone through numerous editions with varying authors, so that needs pinning down.
  • Will look and try to fix. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Bradmeister, please don't add ticks to your responses. I will tick the items myself after checking them.. SpinningSpark 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Brandmeister^talk 22:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-Western astronomy

• Are there two definitions of Al Dafira? That seems to be implied where it says Ulugh Beg makes it 7 and 23 Com, which seems to be mutually exclusive on the previous definition.
  • Ulugh Beg looks like an exception, so I reworded that sentence accordingly. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• "...and several had Chinese names". Well it's not surprising that the Chinese gave stars Chinese names. Perhaps what is meant is just that they gave some of the constellation's stars names?
  • Replaced with "some". Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't really the point. The Chinese gave names to some/several (whatever) stars is what the article should be saying. That the names the Chinese gave them was in Chinese is not really a good way to write it. SpinningSpark 18:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Reworded as suggested. Brandmeister^talk 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...dated to at least the 17th century." I guess what was meant here is that it is at least as old as the 17th century, but the logical meaning is exactly the opposite.
  • That refers to the age of map, so looks ok to me (and that particular sentence has been copyedited by another user). Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll let that one go, but I still think it's ambiguous. SpinningSpark 18:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The constellation is an important part of South American Kalina mythology." It is surprising that such a faint constellation was particularly important. Can you please either expand a little, or provide a quotation from the source.
  • Reworded. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• "In the Kalina region...Coma Berenices becomes visible in October". This seems out of place. The visibility is not given for other regions and the preceding text does not seem to call for it for clarification. If it is associated with some October festival or gathering, then that should be stated.
  • Removed. But because the constellation becomes visible in different times, depending on the region, it's probably useful to say when. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but do it for all regions, or at least the most important ones being discussed. It's just odd to say it here without any particular context. SpinningSpark 17:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The visibility part has been removed, please recheck. Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The constellation was also recognized..." also is redundant here
  • Removed. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Australian Aboriginal astronomy pipes Boorong people to Wergaia and that article says they are a clan of the Wergaia. This book verifies that, so can we have that as a redirect please? The book sounds like it is a useful source if you are interested.
  • Done. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Features

• "...culminates on 2 April at midnight" According to our article culmination, a star culminates every day. Is some different definition being used here?
  • I asked about that. Looks like it's safe to stick to the source. In any case we can just write that it's best visible in spring. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. In that case this can be fixed with rewording like "the midnight culmination occurs on 2 April". SpinningSpark 17:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Done as suggested. Brandmeister^talk 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Brightest stars

• "...giving an idea of how faint the Sun would appear from Beta Comae's distance." More or less a truism that applies to any star of that spectral type (and it is unsourced). The bit about it being slightly brighter could be incorporated in the previous sentence.
  • Removed, that part predates my involvement. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The distance to Beta com is given as 29 ly, but our article's infobox on the star has it 30 ly to the nearest ly. This information is not in the SIMBAD source.
  • Hm, both Beta Comae Berenices and Coma's own infobox say it's 29, SIMBAD confirms this (9.15 pc = 29.84 ly). There's no 30 from what I see. Brandmeister^talk 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

29.84 is 30 rounded to the nearest light year, not 29. SpinningSpark 14:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The fractional precision varies, depending on source. But all say it's 29 something. Brandmeister^talk 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You are truncating rather than rounding. Rounding is more appropriate here, so if it is 29.5 or over, it gets rounded to 30. SpinningSpark 16:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Brought in accordance with Beta Comae Berenices, as 29.78 ly. Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You now have "about 29.78". Giving the number to four significant figures combined with "about" just doesn't sit right. Either say it is about 30 or else say it is 29.78 without qualification. I would recommend the former, an overarching article like this doesn't need four figure precision. SpinningSpark 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed "about". Brandmeister^talk 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Where is "Al Dafirah" cited as being a synonym of Alpha Com? The nearest cite is the SIMBAD database which doesn't mention it. As far as I can tell from a quick trawl through gbooks, Al Dafirah is a synonym of Al Dafira - ie the asterism, not a particular star. (Update, now found it in ref #33, p. 213, so that could now be cited)
  • Corrected, per this and this it's actually Beta Com. Brandmeister^talk 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• "...10 percent dimmer...because it is 58 light-years away". This is very misleading; Alpha Com is almost twice the distance as Beta Com and the change in apparent brightness over that distance would be almost half, not ten per cent. It needs stating a different way, perhaps mentioning absolute magnitude. The thing about its Alpha designation is really a separate point and could helpfully be made a separate sentence: "Despite its Alpha Bayer designation, the star is almost 10 percent dimmer than Beta Comae Berenices. Its absolute magnitude is actually greater than the Beta star, but it appears slightly dimmer because it is 28 light-years further away at 58 light-years."
  • Removed the problematic part. Brandmeister^talk 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Because its orbital plane...long suspected...It now appears...orbital tilt is 0.1°...when seen from Earth." This is uncited, but the speculative language and the numeric data call for an inline cite (plus the star's article seems to contradict this).
  • Hid until I find a ref. Brandmeister^talk 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Star systems

• "Sigma 1639" is a kind of designation I have not seen before. If I understand this correctly (and very likely I don't) it is either a synonym of 68 Comae Berenices or connected with it. If it is 68 Com, then why not use that name for consistency with the rest of the article?
  • That's according to cited ref, p. 127, the star is also known as ADS 8530. For other stars it gives Flamsteed designation, unlike this one. Brandmeister^talk 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A few points; both your link and the one I gave have "Σ" the uppercase greek letter rather than "Sigma" the word. Can we identify what catalogue this is referring to? If we can, and it has an article, a wikilink on Σ would be helpful, otherwise a gloss. If we can't identify it, I am a little unhappy having stuff in the article that no one understands, even if it is sourced. Since it is known in catalogues that we do know about it would make more sense to use those rather than Sigma. SpinningSpark 15:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Changed to Struve 1639, Σ is an alternative designation for Struve stars (although I've seen some of our articles on Struve stars whose title begins with Sigma and not Σ). Not 100% sure whether it's actually 68 Comae. Brandmeister^talk 17:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Variable stars

• Can we have a quick and dirty definition of "flip-flop" here or a wikilink. If Starspot#Flip-flop cycles is the right phenomenon then you could wikilink that either through a pipe or a redirect.
  • I was considering creating a stub about that. Will do soon. Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason not to put a redirect there for now. If the encyclopaedia has some information, it's helpful to point the reader there. SpinningSpark 18:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirected there. Brandmeister^talk 20:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...it is 572 light-years from Earth" Is there some special reason for giving the distance of this star. It looks very out of place as the only distance given.
  • Removed. Brandmeister^talk 17:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Coma Supercluster

• "...imaginary tresses". This phrase is used multiple times in the article. Is it really necessary to say imaginary? I would have thought that it is self evident that the figure drawn through an asterism is imaginary. It's certainly not necessary to keep repeating it.
  • Removed "imaginary". Brandmeister^talk 17:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think you could remove all mentions, not just that one, for the same reason. SpinningSpark 14:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that helps to indicate which part of the constellation is considered tresses. Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant just remove the adjective "imaginary" from all occurences. The mentions of tresses is fine. SpinningSpark 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it for clarity (to avoid possible confusion with the real tresses), but you can remove if you want. Brandmeister^talk 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Its mass is very similar to that of the Milky Way". This sentence is connected with Dragnfly 44 being mainly dark matter but the reason is not clear to the reader. It needs something added like "but its luminosity is much lower"
  • Added "but it emits only 1% of the light emitted by the Milky Way". Brandmeister^talk 17:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Virgo Cluster

• "...member of the Virgo Cluster..." seems redundant. All the galaxies described in this section are members.
  • Removed. Brandmeister^talk 17:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I copyedited that slightly, please check

Looks fine. Brandmeister^talk 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Other galaxies

• There is quite a long discussion of M64, so the image could sensibly be moved out of the gallery to where the galaxy is discussed.
  • Done. Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• On NGC 4314, is "the small ring" referring to the same ring mentioned earlier or something different? This could be made a little clearer.
  • Replaced it with "the galaxy". Brandmeister^talk 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• "...appears superimposed on the Virgo Cluster, although it is only 20 million light-years from Earth". The logic of that escapes me. Are galaxies further away expected to appear superimposed?
  • Removed the second part. Brandmeister^talk 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• The figure of 20 million light years disagrees with the NGC 4565 article (30-50m), the image description text (30-50m) and the Hubble ref (40m) given in that paragraph.
  • Can't find "20 million light years" anywhere in the article. Brandmeister^talk 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That's because you removed it in the previous bullet point! SpinningSpark 19:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• According to Coma Berenices (dwarf galaxy) (and its ref#5), the galaxy is a faint satellite of the Milky Way. This could be mentioned and the galaxy given its own paragraph for consistency with the rest of the section. Either that, or combine some of the other shorter entries into paragraphs (that might be better anyway, a lot of the paras are very short).
  • Done. Brandmeister^talk 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Images

• File:Small ngc4651.jpg should really have an OTRS ticket that verifies the uploader, because the image exists online with a claimed copyright. However, as Commons appear to be accepting it, I won't make an issue of it, but it would be worthwile getting it sorted. If someone raises it on Commons it may end up getting deleted and it is a nice image. Very likely to be picked up should you ever take this on to FA
  • It's the uploader who should have provided an OTRS ticket, but I believe it's correct on WP:AGF basis. Brandmeister^talk 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I was kind of suggesting that you contact the uploader. In any case, I am AGFing it as well. SpinningSpark 19:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In culture

• "The similarity of Berenice's name to that of the Herodian ruler Berenice has led to the constellation's association with the legend of Saint Veronica". Now I know that the source says this but it doesn't make any sense on the face of it. Firstly, the article needs to say that Veronica is a Latinisation of Berenice before the association can be seen at all. It then needs explaining why the association is via Berenice the queen and not directly to Berenice the saint. This source claims it is because Herodian Berenice is sometimes mistaken for the saint. So the progression is constellation → associated with the Herodian queen → associated with the saint.
  • Removed. That seems to be more related to Berenice herself, rather than constellation. Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is slightly short I think. WP:LEAD used to say for a long while that the lead should be three paragraphs. Quite rightly, that has now been ditched in favour of the more vague "no more than four well-composed paragraphs" but that's still indicating it's a bit short. My personal yardstick is 10% of article prose, and you are at 7-8%. Some things you might consider including that aren't already there;
  • The role of Mercator and Tycho Brahe in establishing it as a constellation
  • Association with the postulation of dark matter
  • The Dragonfly 44 galaxy
  • First short burst GRB with a detected afterglow SpinningSpark 19:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Added Mercator and Brahe. Brandmeister^talk 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see just a little bit more in the lead, but that's enough to get it past the GA hurdle. SpinningSpark 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Items marked require some action before the article can be passed. Items marked are waiting for a reply and possible action. SpinningSpark 16:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.