Talk:Corvus (constellation)/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: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 03:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, dealing with the quick points first: I've not been able to check the references to confirm the information's in them, but I think we can AGF on that. The range of content appears comparable to Andromeda (constellation), a featured article, so we can also presume a reasonable level of completeness.

The images are the standard sort for constellation articles. It would be nice to include another next to the "Stars" section, as it describes specific stars and their place in the figure. A labelled chart would make this easier to follow, if sufficiently large to make out. File:Comet 1664 anonym.jpg is probably the best image for showing the stars of Corvus clearly at thumbnail, with the figure, but given the main focus is a comet, and given it's not labelled. Failing that, a crop of the Jamieson atlus, File:Alexander Jamieson Celestial Atlas-Plate 27.jpg, either manual or using {{CSS image crop}} would probably look best out of the remaining options. The Urania's Mirror image can cover the group of constellations behind the mythology, so we can zoom in for the new image. You're probably aware that Urania's Mirror was based off of Jamieson, so there is that against this suggestion, though. If you have access to a better or just more independent atlas or image, I'd use it.

looking at options here.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Meteor showers" is a little odd, especially given one of them is so minor that it required data analysis to prove its existence, which is not, perhaps, what one thinks of when one thinks "meteor shower". That section reads a bit oddly as well, and could use expansion and clarification, particularly before FAC. For that matter, shouldn't they have an approximate date?

aha, but if you look at what folks are describing WRT meteor showers....yes will tweak it a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Seems to be a bit more about them in the source; maybe expand a bit more still? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added about the two most likely linked objects. The evidence for a link with the Giordano Bruno crater seemed too tenuous... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a density statement on the Eta Corvids, but I think that'll do.

good point, added some numbers to give readers an idea about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular culture" feels a little sparse and possibly a little recentist, but those sections are like that. Again, it's something to look at for FAC.

That is hard - Beta Corvi has a bit, which is covered at Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction#Beta_Corvi_.28Kraz.29 but this relates to the star rather than planet. ~~Still looking~~. Found a bit more, but debatable where the best place for it is Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The flaws are relatively minor, and certainly don't weigh up to a fail, so I intend to pass this, but I'll give it a couple days to let the revision id of the passed version have a chance to be a slightly better article. 03:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Pass

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.