Talk:Crater (constellation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Isn't a replacement of source 7 possible? AhmadLX (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes/replaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. How do you get precise RA (10h 51m 14s and 11h 56m 24s) and Dec (−6.66° and −25.20°) values, from the cited IAU page? AhmadLX (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page cited is this, and this is a subpage off it. I thought it was better to link to the parent page as the latter page was just a series of numbers that might be hard to put in context Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake ;) AhmadLX (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3. I could only verify distance to Alpha Crateris from the database link. It doesn't state that it is called Alkes "the cup" (of course ;)), nor could I find that it has magnitude 4.1. AhmadLX (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

added ref for name. Queried best source to add for magnitude...tempted to just use SIMBAD...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love SIMBAD

.AhmadLX (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sarcasm or for reals? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, seriously. But in this particular case, mag 4.1 is also not on SIMBAD page ;) AhmadLX (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. ...mass around 1.61 times that of the Sun... is not okay imo. If around is used, it shouldn't be that precise like 1.61. Secondly, the cited source says it is 1.75 M₀. The two sources also do not agree on temperature, 4589 & 4645 K, so giving a range like 4500–4600 would seem more appropriate. Also, both report T_eff, and not T_surface. AhmadLX (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

damn - was looking at wrong row! ~~Just digesting now...~~ ok the (effective) temps can be rounded to 4600, so done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5. The Hubble Space Telescope was unable to make out the two stars as separate objects. This sentence about B Crt is an orphan ;) The context doesn't establish why is this relevant or important.AhmadLX (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the white dwarfs are hard to spot so close to their stellar companions as they are so tiny....added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. I could not find from this source that luminosity of eps Crt is 391 Solar. The cited book, though, says it is 119. Can you please look into this? AhmadLX (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By going here and selecting 'online data', you get to here and enter the HIP number, which one can round to 391...how best to add that to a ref? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As distance refs have link to cat-entries, others should have too, in my opinion. We add source for verifiability, and if the claim is supported not by article text but by database entry, then we better link directly to that database instead of DOI, Arxiv etc. AhmadLX (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7. Many claims on stellar properties based on journal articles are not verifiable as they are not in the articles but in their databases, which only they can find :D Can you please do that effort and add the database links in such refs, since you already know where these databases are? Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see above for first oneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok so for the one for epsilon crateris, we have this but I can't link to a page with a submitted or saved HIP number. How would you like me to list it, just as online data? Or what? list the HIP to enter? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have Arxiv, DOI & Bibcode links to article text, while only one would suffice, as astrophysics articles are almost always open access, and in this particular case, all except one are open access. So instead of giving three pointers to the same object, I would have preferred adding data-link with short note to enter HIP/HD. Can do without as well. I see most astronomy articles don't do that. But then adding source, which doesn't itself contain the claim, is attempt to keep the reader assured "its sourced". Well, in reality it is, but what if somebody wanted to see if it actually is. They would check in the object, which the reference points to.AhmadLX (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8. Distances are sometimes reported from Sun and sometimes from Earth. AhmadLX (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

made them all from the Sun....unless you want from Earth...?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mr Sun is good ;-D AhmadLX (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9. Magnitude is used exclusively in relative magnitude sense, but sometimes article says relative magnitude ans sometime just magnitude.AhmadLX (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you mean "apparent magnitude"? removed all but first instanceCas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "apparent magnitude", sorry. AhmadLX (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10. If I read it right in the source, the galaxy having slight bar in center is NGC 3513 and not NGC 3511. AhmadLX (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what happened there - attribute switched now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11. I propose that the sentence defining GRBs should be deleted, as it is unnecessary detail. Link to GRB page is already there. AhmadLX (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was helpful but am not fussed to remove so done so Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12. I did some ce and other changes, that you might want to have a look upon. AhmadLX (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

they look ok, only thing is it sounds more natural to me to say "the crow, cup, and snake" rather than "the crow, the cup, and the snake" but that is no big deal and within the realms of personal preference i guess Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove it then.AhmadLX (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13. Pass. Pretty nice looking now. Just one thing: "meteor shower" in infobox should be referenced. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed