Talk:Pictor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) 05:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears nuetral, stable and relatively well-written. Images appear in order, but given that every now and then we have to go round a loop with someone about Till Credner's images, you might consider adding a note on the image page itself, with a link to where Credner explains the status of the images (I can't remember where that is, off the top of my head).

I don't know what culmination is, but interestingly it is not mentioned in the Triangulum FA, but is included here. Not an issue for this GA obviously!
"...spectral type A8VnkA6". First of all, we have not been given a link to anything that explains the concept of spectrum or type, so this is probably the place to do it. Second, WTF is A8VnkA6?? This seems like gibberish even by the arcane standards of spectrum analysis. Can we give readers something more meaningful? Related to this, it is a bit odd to be told that the second star is "another white main sequence star" when we were told neither of these things about the first.

sorted main sequence issue - alpha is as well, I just neglected to put it in..put footnote and linked to spectral type now..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

should "orange giant" be linked to giant star?

yep. linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"had recorded its Right Ascension one hour too small." this sounds somehow ungrammatical to me, but i'm having trouble working out what would be better. Not sure if the issue is just the word "small", or it's something else.

maybe "low" sounds better .... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Lacaille named two neighbouring stars Eta Pictoris." How can someone name two stars by one name? Is the point that he named a star something, and it turned out to be a binary? If so, reword.

I added a note - Bayer and lacaille would simply give two stars very close to each other the same designation with no modifier. It was left to later astronomers such as Gould to designate Eta¹, Eta²etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"eclipsing binary " - link?

linked to binary star#Eclipsing_binaries Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"intrinsic variability" - what is this?

reworded - I need to read the source again to get my head around it....I think it needs a bit more info. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How amazing - a planet potentially 11 billion years old!
" magnetic white dwarf" - what is this?

It is Polar (cataclysmic variable star) - but I've found another study questioning this so might remove for the time being as a bit of a mess that I will have to unravel Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small stuff mostly, and hopefully easily sorted. Interesting assemblage of exoplanets. Soon i think we will have discovered so many that it will become a challenge to filter the most significant for the constellation articles... hamiltonstone (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - one of the reasons I was unsure how to proceed with Cygnus (constellation) was that it has 88 stellar systems with planets so far..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas, i think we're done here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

much appreciated/thanks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]