Jump to content

Talk:Corona Australis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCorona Australis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2015.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
September 27, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 11, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the constellation of Corona Australis contains one of the closest star-forming regions (pictured) to the solar system?
Current status: Featured article

Overall brightness

[edit]

This constellation "has an overall brightness of 16.446" ... 16.446 what? I tried to find the units in the wikipedia article on stars, then did a google search but couldn't find anything. If you know the answer please fix it...

It probably has something to do with amount of radiation received from the stars in the constellation, divided by its surface angle: which says more about the constellation's small area, than about the brightness of the stars in it. I will remove the statement as it is misleading.

Contradiction

[edit]

Look at the info boxes at the end. As Ptolemy had already listed both Sgr and CrA, how could Bayer have split Sgr to make CrA? B00P 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good eyes of thine, B00P!! We'll deal with such problems in Astronomy/Constellations Task Force. Bayer didn't split Sgr to make CrA. Bayer did not change the sky at all, Sgr and CrA were separate all the time, and most other constellations allegedly split by Bayer, were in fact split by Tycho Brahe or Petrus Plancius.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Corona Australis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 04:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will finish by today eve. Thanks!  — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 04:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well written and sourced properly. Just few things before GA:

  • There are 31 refs so, can you convert reflist to reflist|2
  • received a name is Alfecca Meridiana, or Alpha CrA - no need of ,
  • 'middle' -> "middle"
  • It is a blue-white main sequence star located 130 light years away, - no need of ,
  • a pair of yellowish white stars 58 light years away which orbit each other every 122 years - need a , after stars
  • It varies by a quarter of a magnitude around an average apparent magnitude of 4.83 every seven hours. It lies 98 light years away - can you merge?
  • Lying 202 light years away, Lambda Coronae Australis is a double splittable in small telescopes, the blue white primary has a magnitude of 5.1 with a 9.7 magnitude companion. - little odd and tough to understand. Can you please make a separate sentence about the blue white primary has a magnitude of 5.1 with a 9.7 magnitude companion or clarify the existing one
  • Corona Australis also harbours RX J1856.5-3754, an isolated neutron star that is one of the closest to the earth at approximately 200 light years and suspected to be a strange star. - ref?
  • The 3rd century BC Aratus wrote of, but did not name, the constellation, -> In the 3rd century BC, Aratus, a Greek didactic poet wrote of but did not name the constellation,
  • Ref 31 - can you expand it?
  • within the Black Tortoise of the North (北方玄武, Běi Fāng Xuán Wǔ) - a simple thing needed and that is .
  • A later name was Al Iklīl al Janūbiyyah, which the European authors Chilmead -> It was later named as Al Iklīl al Janūbiyyah, which the European authors Chilmead.

This is it for now. I'll have another look at the article once this issues are solved. Cheers! — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 06:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Variable Stars

[edit]

Shouldn't these be included in the "Stars" section instead of "Deep sky objects"? VirtualDave 02:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualDave (talk • contribs)

I felt the article read better with them listed in the molecular cloud in which they occur, rather than appended onto a huge list of stars. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they're not particularly important stars except in the context of the cloud, as far as I know. If you think there's a better way to fit them into the Stars section, do mention it - I'm all ears and definitely open to options. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I was looking at it from the viewpoint of consistency with other articles on constellations that included variables in the "Stars" sections, but if you look at each article on it's own, then obviously you should do what works for each article. Great article BTW! VirtualDave 11:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualDave (talk • contribs)
Thanks-I'm usually one for consistency but the star bits are a challenge....see Bootes for a Work in Progress that is a major challenge.... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely one for consistency but there's always exceptions, I suppose. Bootes is a ridiculous organizational challenge - I'm still not sure where to go with that. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to the {{sfn}} template

[edit]

G'day all, just wanted to mention that recent changes to the {{sfn}} template affect the way it displays in some instances where it is used with a full date, per fn 57, 58 and 78 of this article. As it is used in that way in this article, and there might be more than one editor of this article that has used the template in this way, I thought I'd mention here that the discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Sfn#Query re: loose ampersand using sfn and harvid. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corona Australis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corona Australis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corona_Australis&oldid=1193067505"