Template:Did you know nominations/Chi Cygni
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Chi Cygni
[edit]
Brightness variations of Chi Cygni
- ... that Chi Cygni (pictured) is a variable star that is over 10,000 times brighter at its maximum than at its minimum?
:* ALT1:... that Chi Cygni (pictured) can only be seen in a large telescope when it is most luminous, and can be seen with the naked eye when it is least luminous?
5x expanded by Lithopsian (talk). Self-nominated at 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC).
Article expanded 10x within time-frame of nomination. At 11k, it is well more than long enough. Article written in neutral manner. No copying or paraphrasing detected. No QPQ required, this is second nomination. Problems: The first two paragraphs of the "Evolution" section do not have inline citations. I presume they are supported by the same sources as used in the paragraph, but this needs to be made clear. The first hook is interesting, and I accept it AGF with offline source, but the citation needs to immediately follow the sentence in article per DYK rules. I can't find support for the second hook. This second hook is more interesting as it goes against common sense. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about luminosity scales could get this from the article, but it is confusing to the average layman. Regarding the picture, it isn't the star itself that is pictured, it is the star's luminosity chart that is pictured. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've cited the relevant portions of the article better, also reworded it to more clearly reflect the hooks. ALT1 still isn't in there word for word though. Should I edit the hooks here to reflect what is pictured? Lithopsian (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think ALT1 should be dropped. I've researched it and produced a diagram to better show what is happening. I can't find a reference to directly support what the hook says, and I've weakened the description in the article to reflect only what the references say unambiguously. The star is definitely brighter (visually) when it is least luminous than when it is most luminous, but hard to be more precise. Lithopsian (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- All paragraphs now have inline citations. The citation now directly follows the article sentence that directly supports the DYK hook. I have struck ALT1, as it can't be supported by the sources. (You could say ..."Chi Cygni is brigher when it is least luminous.") The single remaining issue is that Chi Cygni itself is not pictured. I think you could say "(luminosity chart pictured)". Perhaps one of our regular DYK experts could chime in on what is most appropriate, @Montanabw:, @BlueMoonset:?
- How about this for referencing the image, if it is an acceptable format (I also wikilinked Chi Cygni in the image caption):
- ALT2:... that Chi Cygni is a variable star that is over 10,000 times brighter at its maximum than at its minimum (light curve pictured)?
ALT2 resolves all issues from my perspective. Does having the "pictured" portion of the hook in a place other than directly next to the article violate any DYK MOS policy? If not, great. If so, I would think it could be moved there without requiring any further review. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)