User talk:Sadalsuud

Welcome note

Welcome!

Hello, Sadalsuud, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: I guess you know there's an Astronomy Wikiproject to discuss things... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Betelgeuse, first import

I just like these templates - a bit like sticking colourful decals everywhere...all systems go/stick it in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Do you have access to web of science which does a subject search for topics in journals etc.? I can now do it, so can do a run for Betelgeuse to see if there are articles we've not covered. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. I've just been using ADS to find suitable articles. It's been useful, but time-consuming. The Web of Science looks intriguing. Do you find that it zeros in more effectively on critical information than ADS? The reason I ask the question this way is I'm finding a lot of information on ADS — in fact, too much information. I've been having to read a lot of articles just to get information that I deem relevant for the article on Betelgeuse. If you have a more efficient way to access "relevant information", I'd be very interested in knowing. Thanks Sadalsuud (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

okay, I will paste the articles on the talk page a little later tonight and you can see what it picks up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Have listed articles to check off and strike on talk page. Did you want to add any other segments or have you added then all? I have been busy, I have a couple of little RL jobs....but will have time here and there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping to post a new section by tomorrow. I'll let you know when I think it's ready.

Like you, I've been quite busy myself. Nevertheless, I perused the various articles you posted on the Talk page. I found that ADS also lists most of them, if not all. So I've been able to read quite a few of the abstracts and get a sense as to what they are about. In the new sections I'm drafting I have new refs that reference some of these articles.

The main challenge, of course, is finding the time to read all the information that exists on Betelgeuse. I've been quite amazed at the amount of interest on this one star. The second challenge I've had is identifying which articles are important and which ones would end up being superfluous. And the third challenge has been trying to bring some organization to all of this. ADS has been helpful in this regard, as I can do targeted searches.

In conclusion, I've got an idea in my mind of the overall architecture for the article. I will attempt to post 1-2 new sections each week as I did last time over the next few weeks, with the hope of having a GA status article by mid-August. Then we can refine from there. Sadalsuud (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if you do find some that are not worth covering and they are listed, ticking them off on the talk page would be good and just noting that they are too esoteric etc. Mid august sounds good. I find that the really big articles I do best by doing in spurts and then revisiting. Too hefty to do in one go...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Will do. As soon as I get this next section finished, I'll tick off the ones I've had a chance to review. And I second your remark on reading these articles in spurts. To fit the pieces together I find I have to read these articles multiple times. Sadalsuud (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Writing prose

Incidentally, you might find this interesting --> User:Tony1/How to improve your writing - writing prose is a funny thing - a balance between too flowery and too spartan. Hope you are happy with my trimming of yours. I do find this bit of writing quite fascinating. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion and insightful remarks. We all have egos right, and I do notice the mind getting attached to something so ephemeral as words on a page. Pretty nuts, really! I appreciate your editing and in fact review each of your edits afterwards. They're instructive. Taking an article to FA status is a fun challenge and I'm happy to learn as much as I can in this regard. There are times however, where I would like to dialog with you regarding certain changes. How do you propose we do that? Here on this talk page? Sadalsuud (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(belatedly as I just saw this) In general, discussing the article in depth is best done on the article talk page as then others who've edited the article and want to join in can be alerted by the fact that they've watched the page (PS: You can make the 'Watch this Page' default to a 'yes', which I do...but now I have ~6000 pages on my watchlist :/) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Once I'm able to complete this "chunks of text" stage and we move on to the "refinement" stage, I'll be very interested in having this dialog with you in earnest. Right now, it's best just to stay focused. Thanks again for your attention to detail. I hope to have 6 new "chunks" for you to look at tomorrow.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Betelgeuse articles

PS: I got fulltext of A SYSTEMATIC CHANGE WITH TIME IN THE SIZE OF BETELGEUSE - have you got email? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I can also get fulltext of articles in ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, you can email me at sadalsuud@aquariafarms.com. I've noticed a few more articles that I believe will be important for the article. I will be posting them in the next week. Sadalsuud (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

PS I think I will add a new category to the Tables called "Need article". As I look at all the articles, there are some that I believe are truly important to include, but for which one will need a subscription to review. The new category will make it easy to sort and find. Make sense? I won't make any changes until I hear from you on this one. Sadalsuud (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you could do that..or just 'to be checked' or something.Casliber (talk · contribs)

Any other chunks of text to add?

Hey have you add all the chunks of text you were intending to import as yet? I have had a head cold (still winter here in Australia...snuffle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting very close. I thought I'd have something up over the weekend, but I ran into some stiff headwinds of my own. Another 48 hours should do the trick, maybe sooner. I will let you know ahead of time so you can provide some initial insights.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The other really boring task I am doing is making the refs all conform to one style, take a look - (author name is surname, first name; surname2, first name2 etc.) - FAC is often picky about these style things so the page looks professional etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that one on, and I'll definitely look at the improvements. I didn't realize this was a requirement. I've gotten used to simply cutting and pasting the author's names from ADS alongside an "author=" tag, and it seems like the names all show up well in the actual reference. What's the rationale behind this kind of detail? How does it improve the the actual reference?--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's a bit like looking for consistency in subsection titles in star articles but on a much smaller level - just all part of making the whole shebang look more polished by having a uniform appearance...? If you're at a loose end, take a look at WP:MOS...it's..erm...rather large... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article process...

Another thing you may want to look at is the FA process - i.e have a look at the reviewing side of things and see how people think. Incidentally, 90377 Sedna is a nominee at the moment - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/90377 Sedna/archive1. I find the best approach to reviewing is to read and think, "Is there anything I'd change to improve the article?" Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great. As soon as I get these new chunks finished, I'll study these articles in earnest. With this next import, we'll be getting very close to nominating Betelgeuse for GA. In this respect, are there 2 steps to go FA? Do we first submit Betelgeuse for GA and then once it's accepted, take it to FA?--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not essential, but you often get a thorough review and good feedback on stuff you may have missed. I reckon Betelgeuse will be snapped up and reviewed pretty quickly at WP:GAN. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Update - I think once the lead is buffed a little, nominating it at GAN is in order. Anything else can be dealt with there, and an independent set of eyes would be good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

Okay, you want me to start copyediting in earnest now? (i.e. you happy with the content/facts all agreeing with each other?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The facts are pretty tight, I think. I don't see any major revisions. Right now I'm focused on getting the Circumstellar dynamics section up by the end of the weekend. After that, the only other thing that needs a little work will be the Fate section. Some of its facts are not completely in accord with the rest of the article. Also I see a few paragraphs that will need to be added to the Organizational history section. As it reads now it's a little sketchy. It jumps from the 1920s to the 1980s making no mention of what occurred during the interim, although there were significant advances. Also it makes little mention of all the recent work being done in Europe with the ESO observatories... so there's a bit of a NPOV issue there, I think. I don't believe we'll be adding much, but I decided to first focus on Circumstellar dynamics so I can at least have a complete picture in my head.

I'm as anxious as you are to get this finished up—really! Never did I imagine it would require the time and effort that it has. It just turns out that Betelgeuse is one of the most studied stars in the galaxy with hundreds of papers published. Regarding circumstellar envelopes, for instance, there's documentation since 1935 that's relevant and maybe 30-40 papers since, if not more. I wish there was an easier way, but I haven't found one. You read one paper and they reference 5-10 others, sometimes inaccurately, all of which form this mosaic which you can hardly avoid if the commitment is to write something that is balanced and well documented. In terms of copy editing, the Visibility, Properties and Star system sections are pretty much done—except of course for a new Circumstellar dynamics section, which should be added in the next few days.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at those three first once I finish something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Importing chunks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8

Hi Calisber. I've copied the latest version of the Betelgeuse article to my user page and from there inserted 6 new chunks for you to look at. Click HERE to see the article in full, or just read on and click on each section separately.

To be honest, I probably need another day or two to polish up these sections. But given my commitment to have this done by mid-August, I figured it would be useful to give you a heads-up, so we can discuss strategy. As a result, I've drafted a very structured discussion below in the hope of inviting your comments (and everyone else's) "point by point". Dealing with some of the "big picture" issues will be helpful, I believe, as we move into the next phase of dealing with featured article specifics. Feel free to respond to one comment or all.

Article structure

In the last two weeks, I decided to shift gears, forget about variability for awhile and focus on developing multiple sections simultaneously. Because every piece of star data is interconnected, an article can go in any direction it wants, it seems, at any point in time. This makes organization rather challenging. It's for this reason I had to work many sections at once. I had to get clear on what went where!

Pursuant to the dialog we started a month ago, the kind of structure that I've contemplated for Betelgeuse was one already envisioned in the construction of the Starbox, and which is discussed at length in the Talk:Pleione (star) discussion page. The major heading Visibility is all about "seeing" the star — either with the naked eye or a telescope, and the science/conclusions that result therefrom. Properties, on the other hand, is about elaborating on the "Details" section of the Starbox, and as I've come to see has a lot to do with "calculations". I know this distinction is arbitrary, but I believe its actually quite useful, for the following reason:

Rationale

So many of the astronomy news articles that one encounters on the internet meander. The AAVSO and SolStation articles are a case in point. Great articles. Very informative. But you have to read the whole article to find exactly what you're looking for.

This is where, it seems to me, Wikipedia star articles can make a genuine contribution to the overall community. By relating our major headings to sections of the Starbox, there's a clear sense of organization. For instance if a reader sees in the Starbox that a star has a luminosity of 10 X Solar, he can expect a discussion of that issue, not just anywhere in the article, but specifically in the Properties section. That I believe is quite useful. I just don't know if any other editors are on the save wavelength. Your thoughts in this regard would be helpful.

...Now, for the results:

Article content

In reading the article you turned me onto, User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, the words that jumped off the page for me were the following: Criterion 1a states that FAs are "well written"—that the prose is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".

That's certainly worth aspiring to and as you read the new "chunks", it's my hope that some if not all the content will ultimately fit that description. Here's why. As I've researched Betelgeuse, I've discovered a huge need "out there". There is so much conflicting information, so many comments that are made out of context, that nobody has actually put the whole puzzle together showing how all the pieces fit. So as we take this article to FA status, I see creating the best article on the internet with respect to Betelgeuse. How we go about doing that, is what this discussion section is about. So...

Chunk #3

• Click HERE to go directly to the section.

Chunk Number 3 is a final "Visibility" sub-section entitled Angular anomalies. It tries to answer a very basic question: "Why are there so many conflicting or confusing angular distance measurements out there?" In other words, when anyone tries to research Betelgeuse, they are confronted by the fact that there are multiple representations being made — often out of context. That's confusing. So what this section attempts to do is to get above the trees (conflicting statements) to see the forest. That way, as our knowledge of Betelgeuse evolves, at least there's a context established within which one can understand a new discovery.

You'll also notice that this is the section where that 2009 Townes paper you emailed me made a huge difference. It brings the whole issue of angular distance into focus. So thanks.

I hope this section works. Let me know. If I have a concern at all, it's that it might be too long. I just didn't see any way around it, especially if it's our intention to give the reader a "complete picture".

Bottom line? I thought this chunk was ready for export. As I work the formulas in the note section, I am seeing that there are a few missing elements to this section. I should have this complete soon.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Chunk #4

• Click HERE to go directly to the section.

Chunk Number 4 is the Properties Intro sub-section covering some general topics in the Details section which probably don't merit their own sub-section. I'm excited about what this section says. As you'll probably surmise, I decided to take 3-4 days to design my own spreadsheets. That way I could do my own calculations, and understand why different websites were saying what they were saying. The results are astonishing.

To be specific, there's a new luminosity number that will be published here: 180,000 X Solar. That's significant, and I haven't read it anywhere else. But the math is very simple. If you take Jim Kaler's number of 105,000 X solar, you realize it's all based on a radius of 3.4 AU and a temperature of 3,650K. But given the recent paper of Charles Townes (2009), and the discussion that occurs in the Angular Anomalies section, the most logical conclusion is to use the 5.5 AU radius (the orbit of Jupiter). That's what APOD published in 1999. But nobody's done the math since then. At least I haven't seen it in print.

Is that going to be a problem? It shouldn't be. The math is very clear. It doesn't constitute "original research". It's just logically assembling the facts and presenting them in a way that everyone can readily understand. What do you think?

Bottom line? This chunk will be ready soon for export. I've included it so you can see exactly what I'm referring to and comment first. Once the inline Notes are complete, the claims made herein will have substance.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Chunk #5

• Click HERE to go directly to the section.

Chunk Number 5 is a Properties sub-section entitled Obscure origin and has to do with the star's origin and evolution. I think it holds together pretty well, although you might find it can use some improvement. I include it here so you can see how the whole article is evolving.

Bottom line? This chunk is NOT ready for export. I'd like to get some strategic distance for a day or two before exporting it. Your comments will also be helpful

Chunk #6

• Click HERE to go directly to the section.

Chunk Number 6 is a Properties sub-section entitled Ethereal squared. Its focus is mass, size and density, and gets into some serious number crunching. There are two issues:

• Content. This has the same issues raised with Chunk #4 — it makes claims not seen anywhere else. The representations are based on calculations and backed up in the Notes section. This was a lot of fun to work on. I saw some article claim that Betelgeuse would be the size of a beach ball in a big football stadium. Well that was intriguing, I thought. But where's the math??? That's what got me started, and when I did the math, I found the results very exciting. So then I went looking for a stadium with a published volume figure. I found half a dozen, but given that everyone knows where London is, I picked Wembley Stadium. My only question is whether the Notes section is overburdened. It seems to me if we are going to compare the earth to a 1mm pearl and the sun to a mango, it would useful to have the math to back it up.

• Terminology. With the sub-heading "Ethereal squared" I decided to stick my neck out and use a little creative license. As discussed earlier, I personally like the idea of Major headings being structured and defined (i.e. Organizational History, Visibility and Properties, etc.). With the sub-section terminology I like the idea of using colorful language that 1) describes the sub-section, but also 2) gives it some "pizzaz". In good writing, nomenclature can be an effective tool to draw the reader in, and that's what I like about this phrase. It's unique, stands out, and at the same time describes the underlying content. Some might be bothered by the actual terminology itself, and that's why I bring it up. In my mind what I like about the notion of "Ethereal squared" is the poetic juxtaposition of concepts — the left-brain/right-brain sort of thing. In any event, I just wanted you to understand the thinking that went behind this terminology. Another heading that I had contemplated for this sub-section was "Red hot vacuum" — Burnham's term from 1966. It's not bad. But as I see it, it's tired and worn out. Calling this sub-section "Mass, size and Density" is... well... a little dense for my liking. Any thoughts?

Bottom line? This chunk is NOT ready for export. I'd like to see your comments first.

Chunk #7

• Click HERE to go directly to the section.

Chunk Number 7 is a new Star System section. Though there is not a lot to report in this section (YET!!!), I believe any information related thereto should come under a major heading. Besides, when the Gaia space mission occurs 2 years hence, we may find that Betelgeuse has multiple stars orbiting it, each with its own planetary system.

As I see it, let's create a basic structure that lasts.

Bottom line? This chunk is NOT ready for export. To be honest, I just haven't been able to get to it yet. Conceptually, it's quite independent and can be exported at any time, when it's ready.

Chunk #8

• Click HERE to go directly to the section.

Chunk Number 8, finally, is a Notes section to deal with the very important task of substantiating the claims made in the article. In working through the math, I've used bullet points a lot, so the reader can follow the sequence of the calculations.

Bottom line? This chunk is NOT ready for export. Most of the notes sections are done. There are two that still need some work. I would like to see your comments first. This could have a major impact on how this article gets written.

To do list

Once, all the above sections have been exported, I think we'll be close to having an article ready for GA review. There are nevertheless a few other sections that will need some focus:

• A new Properties sub-section which I'm thinking of calling "Circumstellar dynamics". What we are dealing with here is not just an envelope, not just matter, but mass loss, convection plumes, etc. So I think this kind of nomenclature will work well.
• Although the Fate section is already created, it needs some attention.
• The article introduction section will need some work. There is some information there that is way too specific for an introduction, and a lot that is missing. But let's get all the major sections in first, before focusing on that.
• In the original rework of the article, I had anticipated a section on Mythology. I have some ideas here that could be interesting. More on that later when everything else is done.
• The "Further reading" section I've looked at and I've come to the conclusion that it's superfluous. If you look at the links, they are all articles listed in ADS. The problem is that there are likely over 1,000 articles in ADS that pertain to Betelgeuse. Do we include them all? It doesn't make any sense, nor does it make sense to arbitrarily single out one article over another. The better solution is to reference these ADS articles in the the main body itself, hopefully summarizing major insights that the article provides, and placing an in-line reference in the reference section. I've already done that with one or two. When the job's finished, I'll let you know.

Thanks again for your commitment to this process. It's a real learning curve on this end.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Did you perhaps notice that we got GA review on the Pleione article? Now I feel really swamped. When you have a moment, I'd like to discuss the "next step" for that article. Maybe I should just provide a quick heads-up and say I'm focused on the Betelgeuse article for the next month and won't be able to respond immediately. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't see that? I'll take a look at Pleione in a moment. I thought the Obscure origin was the most straightforward and ready to add - I'd rename it Origin and lifespan myself as it also covers the latter in its substance. The Ethereal Squared section looks good too. Nice clear writing. The issue of Original research is tricky. One has to be really careful - I need to think about that segment some more. I agree in general that most Further reading sections are redundant, and prefer removal - you have to wonder the value of a source if you haven't used it to reference anything. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Angular diameter/distance... whatever?

Hi Calisber. In trying to craft the right formulas for the Betelgeuse article, I've come across three different Wikipedia articles that are relevant. Two are classified as "Start" articles, one is unclassified, and they all do a relatively poor job with the subject matter. The articles are 1) Angular diameter, 2) Angular distance, 3) Angular diameter distance. Having three separate articles is confusing and so I would propose merging all three, as they all deal with essentially the same subject matter. It's my sense that if we merge all three, they will enhance each other, and make the subject matter a lot clearer.

To get specific, I'm having a problem as to which article I should reference. Each of them have something to offer, but none of them adequately deal with the issue of stellar diameters. Once we've submitted Betelgeuse for GA, I'd like to switch my focus and do this, as an understanding of "angular distance" will be pivotal in understanding the central representations made in the Betelgeuse article.

Any idea how to accomplish this?--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to look at this today but got well and truly sidetracked. Apologies. Will try to get to it sometime in next 12-24 hours. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, back again. I like the Angular anomalies section and beleive it is ready to transfer into the article. The issue of having an underdeveloped destination article for the bluelink is a common one. There is a process on how to request a merge at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers (notes at Help:Merging) and also post notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Measurement. I'll I've set up the templates and alerted relevant areas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. As soon as I have the Note section finalized I will export "Angular anomalies" and possibly one or two more "chunks". I need to add a new note to the "Angular anomalies" section, which in a sense lays the foundation for future sections. To understand luminosity and give the Starbox data some credibility, it's important to first establish a reasonable "average" diameter for Betelgeuse, which this section has not fully achieved yet. Given the momentum that 5.5 AU already has in the scientific community, that's the one I intend to go with, having provided a rich context for likely modifications down the road. What's noteworthy is that 5.5AU equals roughly 1,165 Solar, a huge number not published anywhere as yet. Yet it's the 1,165 solar that represents one of the pivotal variables in the luminosity calculations. So it's important to effectively establish the rationale in the first section, allowing future sections to leverage off this conclusion. I should have most of these chunks exported to the main article in the next few days.

I noticed your Merge discussion for the 3 articles. I posted additional comments there. The more I have studied each of these articles in the last two hours, I've come to the conclusion that Betelgeuse should link to the Angular diameter article. It's just that it really needs some work. As a bluelink it would only leave readers more confused than ever. Thanks--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, if we get three articles down to two then we'e done some houskeeping :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't fully understand the global issue of merging articles, when it makes sense and when it doesn't. I can see the fundamental problem here. "Angular diameter", "Angular distance" and "Angular diameter distance" are three distinct concepts, although they are all derived from the same basic formula. If you merge them, what's the name of the article? Which dominates?

In pondering this issue, I can see where the problem originated. Each of three articles were written without any awareness of each other. So they evolved independently, without making adequate references to each other. The net result is that there is basically no discussion of how they are interrelated and how they are distinct. That's where the confusion arises, at least for me. Depending on how the merge discussion goes, I will simply turn my focus to improving the "Angular diameter" article (an easier job) and reference the other two articles where appropriate.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Observations on import #3

Hi Calisber. Pursuant to your recent suggestions, I have polished up the various "chunks" and exported them to the main article. I look forward to seeing your improvements. There's a part of me that would have prefered to keep "baking this pie" before exporting. However, most of the concerns from a few days ago have been dealt with, so the different chunks are probably ready for "prime time". There are nonetheless a few issues that are worth bringing up — specifically the issue on original research. Please take a look at my observations below and let me know if the "original research" issue is 1) handled or 2) if there's something that I'm missing. Thanks. It's great working with you on this. --Sadalsuud (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Great - I'll get to the article later today. I have to log off very soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

I've thought a lot about your statement of a few days ago: "The issue of Original research is tricky. One has to be really careful..." and I read the bluelink as you suggested. Clearly this is a very important issue. That's why I raised it a few days ago before even posting anything. And now, having thought about it, I want to nail it, once and for all.

My conclusion? The Betelgeuse article does NOT constitute "original research" for many reasons:

1. The fundamental claims made in the article are all very well established. A radius of 5.5AU (the orbit of Jupiter), for instance, is very well documented. APOD essentially made that statement back in 1999 and again in 2010. UC Berkeley in 2009 reconfirmed it with this statement: "Last year, new measurements of the distance to Betelgeuse raised it from 430 light years to 640, which increased the star's diameter from about 3.7 to about 5.5 AU." So we are not coming up with anything new. We are just bringing some rigorous math to the representations of established and well recognized astrophysicists.
2. In User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, Tony points to Criterion 1a which states that FAs are "well written"—that the prose is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". For me, the guiding principle behind all the research we're doing is to clarify the confusion! One source says that Betelgeuse's luminosity is 105,000 suns, another 40—100,000, yet another 7,600? For any reader trying to understand what's going on, this is very confusing. And this is where I believe the article that we're drafting goes from mediocre to "brilliant". With rigorous math, we sketch out the ranges associated with distance (parallax), angular diameter, radius, volume etc, that way giving the reader a clear understanding of what the issues are.
3. By including a Notes section, we provide detailed calculations to show the reader how we arrived at our conclusions. To achieve this objective, very detailed spreadsheets had to be designed which required many hours of focused effort, and the whole reason for this, of course, was to enhance the credibility and "usefulness" of the article — something that very few articles on Betelgeuse have done. So I think that's valuable.
4. The formulas on which these conclusions are based are also very well established. For instance the angular diameter formula upon which most of the article's conclusions are based was exactly the same formula used by Michelson and Pease in 1920 when they reported that Betelgeuse was 240 million miles away.
5. The formulas are simple to understand. I've endeavored to draft the Notes so that a high school student with no more than a calculator can check the math to establish its veracity.
6. Given the various error factors present with the angular diameter and parallax measurements, I decided to round numbers to make the calculations even easier to understand. However, once you go down the "rounding" path, you have to be careful that your numbers don't get too skewed. This level of detail too has been closely monitored.
7. When you put the representations of other authors (i.e. source material) under a microscope, you can see many errors. That was surprising to me at first... and confusing. But then it occurred to me that they were simply avoiding the math and choosing to simply rely on the representations of others. If you are interested, I can provide you with some examples. But what's the point? The Wikipedia policy of providing references, though laudable, in this case can actually work against the article and only create more confusion. So this is where we've simply gone beyond the call of duty, avoided repeating unsubstantiated claims, while never doing original research.

In conclusion, I believe the Notes section should allay any concerns of "original research". There simply is none. What does exist is simply a high degree of rigor brought to "existing research".--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mixing metaphors?

I have a small concern that the analogy of a pearl orbiting a mango inside a sports stadium might be construed as a "mixed metaphor". Is it? I originally tried to come up with a sports analogy. Unfortunately, there are none that work. A baseball or cricket ball is too small, a soccer ball too big. The critical issue for me was getting the math to work so the analogy had some veracity. What I like about the mango analogy is the bluelink takes you to a picture of a mango that is more or less round and yellow - hence an appropriate metaphor for the Sun. But combining a pearl with a mango....hmmmm! Perhaps, the better metaphor is to say a "seed", hence something organic. But then you are stuck with the issue of "What kind of seed?... A mango seed?" Mango seeds unfortunately are too large, as are grapefruit seeds as well. When I first crafted this section I used a ball-bearing, in order to help the reader conceptualize the Earth's relative size to the stadium. Though it works conceptually, it lacks poetry. Why I like a pearl is that its beauty reminds one of Earth, and when you click on the bluelink, it creates a strong visual image of something round and tiny. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh...actually I took a while to get "in the zone" writing here when I began too. You're not gonna like this but we can't use it if another source didn't specifically use the analogy. Have a look at Wikipedia:No original research. I get (maybe overly) careful about it. For instance I write about Australian plants called banksias, in fact I have one at FAC at the moment, Banksia scabrella - under ecology, I couldn't put "no pollinators have been recorded" as no-one has explicitly stated that, just that on one large survey no-one recorded any. I think we'll have to ditch the mangos and pearls... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bummer! You're right! I don't like it, but hey, I'll get over it. I knew this was going to be a learning curve no matter what. So thanks for the rigor and the advance notice.

At the same time, I've just taken the time to study the Wikipedia:No original research page. And it appears to me that maybe an analogy that is based on primary and secondary source material could qualify. Sorry to split hairs here. And tell me if I'm out in the ozone with this one. But this is what the "No Original Research" page says:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.

Hmmmm! The essential fact behind the mangoes and pearls is a radius for Betelgeuse that is 5.5AU. That's very well established in primary and secondary source material, as already referenced in the article. Moreover, I don't see us "advancing a position not advanced by the sources". We're simply providing a graphical image that gives people an "experience" of how big 5.5AU really is. I also notice that the Wikipedia policy on "Routine calculations" supports what we're doing. The math is nothing more complicated than high-school algebra. I also see the analogy meeting the Verifiability and NPOV standards. Maybe I'm being hard-headed here, but I just don't see how an analogy like this is going to be challenged or is going to upset somebody. If it's OK with you, I'd like to submit the analogy for GA review and see what comes back. If you think we should scrap the analogy and the calculations right away, let me know.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I read your Banksia scabrella article. It flows really nice! I hope we can achieve that with the Betelgeuse article.

Hey, I think it would be a good idea for others to read it, and if the consensus is that it is all good (i.e. not OR) then I'll be happy :) - so I think it is a matter of tweaking the lead and tosssing it to the snake pit....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I noted your suggestion that we change the nomenclature from "Obscure origin" to "Origin and lifespan". Makes sense. For me, however, I decided early on to pursue a particular theme for the whole article. Major headings will be strict, thus giving the article a definable structure (i.e. "left brain"). Sub-headings, by contrast, would be colorful, artistic, even metaphorical. (i.e. "right brain"). The reason I went down this road dates back to our discussion on the Pleione article. I like structure in an article - hence the rigid terminology for major headings. But I also thought that editors would want to have some degree of creativity with nomenclature, so as to give each article a distinct quality. Also, I find that creative nomenclature like this, by creating a question in the reader's mind, draws them in. If this approach doesn't work or it's too "artsy-fartsy", let me know, especially if it is not "in sync" with Wikipedia standards or it doesn't take the article to FA.

You'll also notice that I changed the terminology for the section on Mass and Density to "Ethereal cubed". "Ethereal squared" implies a two-dimensional plane; "cubed", by contrast, is three dimensional. So I think the metaphor works better. It means Ethereal X Ethereal X Ethereal, which I kind of like, as well as Ethereal in 3 dimensions.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Starbox dysfunction

This is a minor issue, but one that's been bugging me for a long time. Do you notice how the inline references in a starbox will precede the unit measure, sometimes making this data confusing to read? In the example to the right, Ref #4 comes before the "K" for Kelvin, and it's the same phenomenon for all the others. With the "Age" entry, Ref #1 competes visually with the scientific notation 108, making this entry difficult to read. I don't believe that this is something we can change on our end, but for "Age" (and all the others) it would be helpful if the reference came after the word "years", not before it. Is there any way to change this? Can we modify the templates ourselves or do we need someone else to do that?--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Betelgeuse (α Ori) Details Mass ~18-19 M☉ Radius ~1,180 R☉ Luminosity ~180,000 L☉ Temperature 3,500 K Age ~1.0×108 years

Good point you raise here - I am no good on templates. I suspect someone else on the Astronomy wikiproject was the person who created it, so we can ask there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now asked so we can see what happens. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on this. This will improve all star articles. --Sadalsuud (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rejigging the lead

I have rejigged the lead - para 1 is observation-type stuff, para 2 is properties, and para 3 is lifespan. Feel free to change/add/subtract what you think is necessary and then nominate to GAN. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. A huge improvement. My only thought would be to remove the specifics on Pease and Michelson, as their names also show up in the "Organizational history" and "Angular anomalies" sections. Three times is too much, don't you think? I'll do a little tweeking now and let me know if it works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. "Rejigging" eh? Nice word. I think I'll add that one to my vocabulary.

GA Nomination

There are a few other things I'd like to do before we nominate this article for GA status:

1. draft the "Star system" section. 1-2 days max.
2. add a few mini-chunks to the Organizational History section so it's complete. 1 day max.
3. make sure all the references in the "Further reading" section are included in the article with appropriate references, and then delete the section. 1/2 day max.
4. Clean up the "See Also" and "External Links" sections. 1/2 day max.

By Friday, this should all be done and we can submit. OK with you?--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Happy to follow your lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reconsidering strategy

Hi Casliber. I can't believe I've been so dyslexic for 2 months that I couldn't get your name right. Many apologies. I've never had this happen before. Really weird! I should have my eyes checked.

Since our last communication, I've been giving a lot of thought to your comment about being "overly careful" when it comes to Wikipedia:No original research. The basic thought floating around in my head has been "What is it that you know about "No OR" that I don't?" Hence, I wonder whether the representations made in the Betelgeuse article are perhaps too aggressive.

So I'd like to reconsider strategy. As I see it, there are two ways we can go:

• Supply a range of values, or
• Come up with a reasonable "average".

Let's take Betelgeuse's radius, as this one figure has a pivotal impact on many of the article's representations. We can say that the diameter is between 3.2 AU to 7.0 AU, hence between 650 Solar and 1500 Solar, and that way cover our bases. Or we can simply say, as we've done, that the astronomical community has chosen simplicity and is using the orbit of Jupiter (5.5 AU) as an interim average.

How the above range is computed is by taking the Hernandez (2009) angular diameter of 42.57 mas as a minimum and the Balega (1982) figure of 57.8 mas as a maximum, and then applying the Harper error factor of 197 ± 45 parsecs to come up with a range of values. Is that NPOV? I don't know.

Why this is important is that radius is one of the key variables in the luminosity calculations. If we use the range of 650 - 1500 solar, we could show luminosity ranging from 57,000 solar up to 302,000 solar. That's an enormous range, and frankly way too confusing to be of real value "in my opinion".

And that's the problem, right there... "in my opinion". At the end of the day, "my opinion" doesn't matter, I suppose, and that's why this Betelgeuse article is so challenging. There are still so many opinions, calculations and bona-fide studies done that you could make a lot of different representations, and probably meet the "No OR" guidelines.

Given that I've been wrestling with this issue the last 2 days, I came up with what I think is an elegant solution. If you go to the end of the "Angular anomalies" section, 2nd to last paragraph, you'll notice I changed the last sentence and added a new APOD reference (#56). It's from January 2010. What is APOD using as the "de facto" radius? The orbit of Jupiter - hence 5.5 AU. I think that says it, don't you?

In conclusion:

• I'd really appreciate your insights into what you think "careful" means. For instance, if we are not "careful", could we actually make the GA and FA reviews more challenging and time-consuming? and
• Do you think we should have an astrophysicist on the team as we take this through GA and FA review? I notice that RJHall was an early contributor to this article (2007). Maybe we can ask him. Any thoughts?

I agree with the approach taken, that is noting uncertainty and stating what the consensus value appears to be, The idea of wikipedia is to reflect scientific knowledge not analyze it. Anyway, I think Spacepotato and RJHall are two editors to approach in the first instance - I'll ping them and they can give feedback on the page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have pinged spacepotato (who wrote the white dwarf article) and RJHall, so we can take a breather and see what they think. One of the things I like about WP is not beintg afraid to list uncertainty - I think it adds interest to the mystery of the whole thing, this huge hot supervacuum thing etc. and how hard it is to measure. Can't wait till next year to see what Gaia shows. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for jumping on this. I'll continue to work some of the other sections in the meantime. I cleaned up the External links section and will try to get the Star system section finished soon. That's an interesting story. When I get the first draft completed I'll let you know.--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

System launch + GAN?

I've been able to complete the "Star system" section in the last few days. You can see it in my sandbox by clicking HERE. Please review and let me know if you think it's ready to export to the main article. I'd like to take another day or so to get some strategic distance on the section. Also I will be adding the references and other useful links.

I've noticed that Spacepotato has recently been contributing to the article. That's great! He appears to be taking it a section at a time. Once we have inserted the Star system section, then I think we're ready to submit for GAN. Even though there are some "mini-chunks" and other tweeks I'd like to do, there's no point holding up the process. It will be useful before doing so, however, to get Spacepotato's thoughts on the matter. What do you think?--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The section looks good (you don't mean to import the segments marked System Source Data as well, do you?). I'd bring it in now and then wait for spacepotato to finish and then nominate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. In trying to craft these sections, I've found it useful to import various blocks of text from various articles into the sandbox— hence the sub-section "Source data". It seems to save a lot of time having this information in one place. Otherwise I'm bouncing all over the place forgetting which tab is which, etc.

Once I get the relevant refs inserted, I'll transport over to the main article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Angular rework

Hi Casliber. In the last week, I've focused a lot of attention on reworking the "Angular anomalies" sub-section. I wasn't quite happy with it. The note section was a little too flimsy to support the argument being made and so I was concerned the section would NOT meet the Wikipedia:No original research and NPOV requirements. The issue of angular diameter is central to every other section on Betelgeuse: temperature, luminosity, size, volume, etc. So I wanted to make sure this one section didn't take any shortcuts and could really stand firm.

The net result is that I've redesigned NOTE1 as a more robust table outlining the important angular studies which have been done. Also, I've added a few new paragraphs which discuss "THE DEBATE" in earnest, thus teasing out the dynamics in the discussion as opposed to "jumping to the bottom line", as I had done with the earlier version. You'll also notice that I re-crafted the caption under the radio image to make it more relevant to the section. As a result, I think the section works a lot better, but would invite your comments before importing into the main article. You can review the new version HERE!. The rework begins with "The current debate...", which I've highlighted in red for easy reference.

I have also incorporated your recent changes. Thanks for that contribution. The word "actually" was redundant.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you don't see it on my talkpage - yes, I think it is more sequential and hence clearer. I'd go with the rewrite. Once you stick it in I'd say nominate for GAN. I will try and trim some excess wordage after you update the angular rewrite. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Steps toward FA

I've gone ahead and included the revised "Angular anomalies" sub-section with a few additional improvements. I'll nominate it for GAN in the next day or so. The only remaining issues I see are:

Major issues

• Organizational history needs a little cleanup. There's duplicate and even conflicting language given the recent imports. I'll try to do that in the next 48 hours.
• The Fate section needs a little attention. Once again, some of the wording is conflictive and out of context. I don't think it will take much to get it up to standard. I will try to complete this too in the next week and let you know so you can also review.
• Once these two sections are handled, I'll reincorporate the remaining refs from the "Further reading" section and then delete.
• The last thing to do will be to draft a new Properties sub-section called "Circumstellar dynamics". I've already been doing the research. It will incorporate issues of mass-loss, convective plumes, layers to the extended atmosphere, size etc. And with that done, I think the article will be pretty much complete.

I'm assuming we don't have to have these changes completed BEFORE submitting for GAN, right? Or do you think it's best to get it all done now and then submit?--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you could play it either way really I think. The Good article criteria have "broad" as opposed to "comprehensive" so you could put it up before adding the "Circumstellar dynamics" - OTOH, if you think you'll definitely add it for FAC then another set of eyes on it is a plus beforehand. I find momentum is a good parameter to consider - if you feel that you'd really like another set of eyes (and GA stagepoint) sooner rather than later, then nom before adding bit - if you have a set idea and the energy to carry it through add the material first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. The major reason I was thinking to submit for GAN right now was to save time... assuming it takes roughly 30-60 days before someone can get to it. The truth is that I don't believe the article is complete at this point—not without a "Circumstellar dynamics" sub-section. So, in that respect, I'd prefer to wait. Momentum should not be a major issue. I should be able to get this done in the next 2 weeks, perhaps beforehand. So if it's OK with you, I'd rather focus on getting that done as well as the other edits just mentioned before submission. HOWEVER... if you think this will only waste time, let me know.--24.203.198.172 (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Betelgeuse will be picked up quickly at WP:GAN, I'd say within days. Yeah, if you want to complete it, that's a fine way to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks again for your unrelenting commitment to getting Betelgeuse to FA. This article would not be going anywhere without it. As soon as I have various sections upgraded, I'll send you a note so you can review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'll go over the prose again then :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor issues

I've also been cataloging some minor issues that are worth discussing I believe:

• In the Angular anomalies section there is a technical phrase "spectral dispersion" that is used. Should we redlink it? I've looked for articles in Wikipedia and there are none. Also, I've found a few articles on the internet, but they are too technical to be useful. Any thoughts?

Looking at Wikipedia:Red link, I'd say "yes". Maybe even ask at astronomy wikiproject page as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• In looking at the Vega article, the formulas in the note section use a small font. Should we do the same with the Betelgeuse note section or wait for GAN review? Example: 1,180 ${\begin{smallmatrix}R_{\odot }\end{smallmatrix}}$ versus 1,180 $R_{\odot }$

Following another FA is always good :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I was surprised by the GAN review for the Pleione (star) article, requiring that etymology be a major section right up front. This is not how other FA articles are written. In any event, should we perhaps include an "etymology" sentence in the lead section? See Pleione (star).--24.203.198.172 (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright?

Hi Casliber. Your suggestion regarding the posting of a spectral dispersion question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy produced a very useful immediate result. You can read the ensuing dialog by clicking HERE. There are several questions that arise from this dialog, which I'll address in sub-sections so we can deal with each separately:

Avoiding copyrightvio

In the drafting of Wikipedia articles, how does one deal with copyright violation? Can you point me to the right page or offer suggestions? I thought that if I provided a reference to an article or abstract we were covered. Apparently not, given the fact that a whole sentence has been deleted from the Angular anomalies sub-section. If I put the Hernandez sentence in quotes, does that deal with the issue? Quotes + ref? Or is the equation rather: Quotes + Ref + Rewording = You're safe! Your insights in this respect would be helpful.

It can be like walking a tightrope. Essentially about similar wording to imply same meaning but not same words. Only use quotes if the original quote in an of itself is notable, like "I have a dream etc." or whatever. More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I did a little extra research and revised the sentence combining information from several articles. So there's no longer any copyright violation and I've avoided the issue of "spectral dispersion" altogether. I still think the phrase should be defined somewhere in a Wikipedia article. You find it all over the place in different astronomy articles. So it's a central topic for amateur astronomers. Also, given the articles I've read, the phrase appears to have a meaning that is more than the sum of its parts (spectrum + dispersion). So the statements below are still valid concerns. In the interest of getting this article completed in a timely manner, however, I decided to sidestep the issue. Anyway, just thought to update you.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Spectral Dispersion—Take 2

I believe the topic of "spectral dispersion" is an important one for several reasons and therefore needs to be included in the Betelgeuse article itself:

• First, when I googled the phrase with quotes around it, I got 35,200 results back with some webpages that really go into the topic. Consequently, the phrase appears to be a "buzzword" among astronomers and needs to be adequately addressed for Wikipedia readers.
• Secondly, so much of the current debate around Betelgeuse and all red giants, it appears, comes down to the issue of measuring angular diameter, which is a telescopy issue. Also, the AMBER technology appears to be the "latest and greatest". At least it's producing results with very tight error factors, and so I believe it's VERY important for the technology to be mentioned in this article. You don't see such tight error factors in the visible or mid-infrared, and so AMBER + SPECTRAL DISPERSION may in fact yield huge advances in years to come. That's why I thought this Hernandez quote was useful right where it was. It appeared to summarize the AMBER in a nutshell. Hmmmm! How do we deal with this? Just rephrase the sentence? Put quotes around it?

New article or sub-section?

You'll notice that Christopher Thomas pointed out that the issue of "spectral dispersion" is covered in the Dispersion (optics) article. That was great. So I removed the redlink, replaced it with a blue one. The problem is, however, that the Dispersion (optics) article does not mention the phrase "spectral dispersion" and in reading 1) the Dispersion (optics) article itself, 2) articles on the web that deal specifically with the subject of "spectral dispersion", and 3) Christopher Thomas' comments, it appears there's a need to at least have a sub-section in the Dispersion (optics) article on the topic of "spectral dispersion" or at least "Dispersion in astronomy". What do you think? Does "spectral dispersion" merit its own article? Here are two webpages to consider:

• Spectral Dispersion of Star Images at Low Elevation talks about the problems caused by "spectral dispersion", and
• Spectral dispersion talks about its measurement in terms of "nanometers per pixel", an important issue in spectrometry it seems— hence both issues that are central to amateur telescopy, and therefore relevant to Wikipedia readers.

Also, in reading the two articles, what jumps out is that the topic is closely related to spectrometer and spectroscopy. Unfortunately, neither of these Wikipedia articles mention "spectral dispersion" either.

Thanks again for your timely response on all these issues. And I wouldn't bring this stuff up if I didn't think it had a meaningful contribution to make to the Betelgeuse article. AMBER, near as I can tell, is "cutting edge technology" and deserves a mention here. In fact, AMBER itself, probably deserves a new sub-section under VLTI.

I look forward to your response.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

When I'm finished with Betelgeuse, I'll probably take a crack at updating the VLTI article, unless somebody gets to it before I do.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I highly doubt anyone will tackle it in the meantime :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Circumstellar Dynamics Done

Hi Casliber. I think I got this section finally done. I'm pooped—500 pages of source material condensed into about 1 page! I think it provides a fair overview, although it's going to need some tweeking. You can see it HERE. Any insights you can provide, as always, would be helpful.

Though it's fairly long, it's an important section, I believe. Astrophysicists seem to be very focused on solving the mystery of mass return to the Galaxy these days—a subject that has Betelgeuse center stage given its high visibility.

You'll notice that I intend to move the ESO pic to this section as it directly relates. I have a couple of other pix I'm looking to upload to put into the Properties section.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is pretty promising. I recommend placing it in the article and we can edit from there. One issue is minimising repetition - much easier to do when all in the one article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean about repetition. It was a little tricky to avoid as I debated reworking different sections. Your idea of importing "as is" makes the most sense. Right now I'm in the process of importing a few pics and doing some page layout. I should have this done in an hour or so, after which I'll import. As soon as that's done, I'll let you know.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. It's 1 am here so I will go to bed soon and see in the am. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Pleione (star)

Hi Sadalsuud. I've finally finished up the GA review of Pleione (star), and placed the article on hold. You nominally have one week to address my comments, though since we're both busy with other things I'm going to be rather lenient on that! Please leave your responses on the review page. Modest Genius ^talk 22:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort on this. I will be responding shortly.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been more help on Pleione - I haven't got much on it. I'll try and copyedit where I can though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm sort of stuck in a few places. You'll notice a few relevant comments on images and Ethnological influences in the Pleione talk section. Where I'm stuck however is...

1. Modern legacy image. I haven't been able to decide what image to include in the "Modern legacy" sub-section. There are a couple of options. There's the back hull of a racing schooner with the name Pleione. Hmmmm! I also imported the album cover to Hundred Eight Stars. The artwork and the music are "prismatic"... kinda like that word. (It's a blend of jazz and hip hop, if you're interested in hearing it.) Anyway, it's technically the most direct "modern legacy" of the star Pleione, but I'm hesitant to make the article look like an advertisement. And I'm still waiting to hear from the Bonestell organization to see if they make available the "Purple Pleione" pic. Nothing so far.
2. Properties image I'm not great at importing images into Commons. I'm still trying to figure that one out. Anyway, here's the best image on Pleione's "double disk" phenomenon (You'll need to scroll down a bit). It comes from a site in Japan, which interestingly is where much of the research on Pleione is being done (See refs). Problem: The quality is not the best and I have no idea about copyright issues on something like this.

Any insights you can provide would be helpful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons is easy- you just log into commons and upload away. Wikipedia:Non-free content review is the place to ask about Fair Use. Might be tricky with an album cover as usually it illustrates that article alone. The boat might be slightly easier. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I had already uploaded the "Hundred Eight Stars" jpg under Fair Use guidelines, I decided to include it. It is after all the most "direct" legacy from the star itself as opposed to the Greek myth Pleione— which is what a Pleione-sailing pic would relate to. I'm still waiting to see if the the Bonestell organization responds with the "Purple Pleione" pic. Thanks for your insights. We'll have to see if the album cover qualifies for this article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've run through the article again, and most of my concerns have been addressed, thank you. There are a small number of outstanding items left, they shouldn't take long to finish off. Comments are at Talk:Pleione_(star)#Second_look. Modest Genius ^talk 19:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to finally jump on this today or tomorrow. Been travelling the last few days with little time to log on. Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerns at the crossroads

Hi Casliber. All the major sections have been inserted. As a result, I think we're at a crossroads. Do we submit for GAN review now, or does the article still need more work? Here are the concerns that arise in my mind. You may have your own.

1. Redundancy. As you know, the Organizational history section, up until we got started in July, was called "Observation" and was basically a Visibility, Properties and Star system section all wrapped up into one. Now that new sections have been added, there's a fair amount of redundancy. I don't see trimming information from the new sections, as we run the risk of destroying the flow of the argument, thus making these sections difficult to understand. The best solution, I think, will be to trim the Organizational history section in places, giving it a more general tone. Its fundamental thrust should be "Here's the big picture"—a historical overview that gives readers an understanding of what the major issues are. If we do this, we may also want to trim some of the details out of the lead section, as that creates some degree of redundancy as well (Example: I just trimmed the angular measurement statements in the lead ending off with current estimates). What do you think?
2. Missing Information. As I attempt to rework the older sections (Fate, Further Reading, Organizational history) I notice there's information missing—specifically: 1) no discussion on stellar mass in the Properties section (I just took Kaler's number of 18-19, though there is a debate), an issue which in my mind creates confusion when you come to the Fate section with its 15 stellar mass representation 2) no information on stellar magnetism, so I can't in earnest delete the "Further reading" section...yet, and 3) important historical events in the Organizational history section. Should I take another week to polish all this up before submitting?
3. Length. I was starting to have a concern the article was getting too long. When I copy and pasted the printable version, as suggested by Wiki guidelines, it comes under 88k. We okay here?
4. Pleione. As you can see from the above section, I can no longer put the Pleione article on the "back burner". I've never been through GA review. Do you have time to help me get that article up to par?

Thanks again for you on-going commitment to this process. I noticed your comment in the Betelgeuse discussion. So at least everyone is on notice. Anyway, we're almost there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The size is big but still okay. Wouldn't really want to go much bigger though. I'll see what I can do with Pleione. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Rukbalgethi Shemali

Hi! Do you happenstance have a source for Tau Herculis being named Rukbalgethi Shemali. I'm on a long term project to clean away star names that never were. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I will be updating the articles and posting references in the next few days for Alpha, Theta and Tau Herculis, as their etymology is interrelated. Good luck. Sounds like a big job.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll keep my eyes open, perhaps make a list of the modern common sources. F.ex. Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning by Richard Hinkley Allen use to be a source of lots and lots of star names from anno dazumal. L8R! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting this done. I've been crazy busy and Betelgeuse was on the front burner. I should have this done in the next week. Thanks for your patience.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, same question about Eta Herculis - what is the source for it being named Sophian? It is not in Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning. Hypocryptickal (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Star visibility information location-specific?

Hi. First of all thanks for all your work on Pleione and Betelgeuse, as a casual stargazer I've found them two of the best and most informative articles I've read. I just wanted to mention something that might be a problem with the visibility details for both articles unless I'm missing something obvious. The information about what times of year the stars start to become visible seems like it could be a bit misleading as it doesn't say where in the world you have to be to see them at the stated times. For example reading the Pleione article I was initially confused to read that it starts to rise just before dawn in October, as I saw it fairly high in the sky at around 11pm last night (near London). The Betelgeuse article also has visibility information that seems to depend on being at a particular longitude. Should a caveat be added to these sections to warn that some of the information depends on where you are located? Anyway thanks again for all your work and apologies if this is a misunderstanding on my part. GlassWhale (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, the idiocy of my above comment has just become apparent to me, I do apologise. I'm not sure about the dates for Pleione though, other sources seem to suggest the Pleiades are visible long before October. Still, I'd better brush up on the basics before I chip in on anything astronomy-related in future.GlassWhale (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations and generous acknowledgment. It's unusual and always great to get feedback like this. In response to your question/concern I will do some added research. You may well be right. In fact, it occurs to me that what might be missing is an article dedicated to the subject— something like Stellar visibility. This would be an article for all of us amateur astronomers, an introduction of sorts on the whole topic of stargazing in general and when different constellations are visible. It's true that the rising and setting varies depending on one's latitude and longitude, but there are general parameters that could provide a useful overview of the topic and be an effective "bluelink" for editors to reference. As I research your question, I will keep this in mind. Often, seeing how the whole picture fits together is very helpful when zeroing in on the specific details of each star. Let me know if something like this resonates with you.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The longitude thing was an embarrassing mistake on my part, please don't do any extra research on that on my account. Obviously geographical location won't make any noticeable difference to the angular distance between a star and the Sun in the sky, I really should have thought that through before posting. I like the idea of an article on stellar visibility, that would be very useful for beginners like me as in my experience comprehensive information about what's visible when over the course of a year isn't easy to find on the web in a simple, easy to read format. Maybe I'll have a look around for other articles that present similar kinds of data to get some ideas how it could be done. Anyway, thanks for taking my query seriously even though it may not have warranted it. GlassWhale (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally nominated Betelgeuse for GA

Hi Casliber. I finally finished polishing up the Betelgeuse article pursuant to the discussion we've been having and have thus submitted it for GA Review. Sections upgraded were:

1. Organizational history. Upgraded pursuant to discussion.
2. Properties. New paragraph added on stellar mass. This was important to clarify any confusion in the Fate/Supernova section.
3. Luminosity. Luminosity has been updated pursuant to discussion.
4. Approaching supernova. The Fate section has a new paragraph and many new refs. After getting Pleione through GA Review, I could see that this section was lacking adequate refs. I also thought that "Approaching Supernova" was more effective nomenclature. As I studied FA requirements, it suggested that headings should draw readers into the article. Given all the scuttlebutt on a supernova happening in the next 1000 years, I thought this would be more of an eye-grabber.

Thanks again for your continued support throughout this whole process.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I am still gobsmacked by the amount of material you unearthed to expand the article. My free time is erratic for another couple of weeks yet but I'll try to help out where I can to get this article Good then Featured...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Remaining items

There are a couple of topics not yet covered, 1) bow shock and 2) periodicity. However, I'm a little concerned about the size of this article. I did a printable version of the article and discovered that "readable prose" is under 60K. So we should be OK. I think I'll focus on trimming where possible until GA Review. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've taken some time to upgrade the article in various ways:

1. Condensed Prose. Now that all the major sections are complete, I've had a chance look at sections drafted in July and have condensed language where possible. There was redundant info in Rhythmic dance and Angular anomalies which has been trimmed.
2. Section Intros. In order for the whole article to fit together, I've looked at the first couple of lines in each sub-section to make sure they provide a good intro to the section while helping the reader see how the section relates to the whole article.
3. Linking Prose. A few sentences have been added here and there that ties the whole article together. For instance, the Star system section had indicated that the close companion had an orbit of 9AU. As you may recall, that section was drafted before Circumstellar dynamics. As a result, it made sense to add language pointing out that an orbit of 9AU would occur within the star's chromosphere... that sort of thing.
4. New Pictures. Three new pictures have been added. I found a good one for the Etymology section too.

That should do it for now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Betelgeuse

The article Betelgeuse you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Betelgeuse for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Constellations Task Force activity

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the astronomy-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of the Constellations taskforce of WikiProject Astronomy. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this task force, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is moved to the 'active users' section - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Astronomy at 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC).

Betelgeuse redux

Sometimes big articles can be maddening. I have had a busy summer, and to me Betelgeuse looks great but for tidying up the Name section and finding a couple more refs and buffing it a little so it doesn't look so fragmentary. I have had this problem with other articles where there is one point that just doesn't quite "work" and sometimes it helps to take a step back for a while (as well as hopefully finding some other material). Do you feel like this about it or are there other bits in the article you are still concerned about. I was figuring for completeness that doing Rigel (and then Bellatrix, Mintaka etc.) was one way to go...or start buffing other red giants and supergiants :) I started to feel a bit overawed with it all. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Casliber. Good to hear from you after all this time. I like you, really needed to pull back for a while and in fact was intending to get back in touch with you after the holidays. The article is pretty complete. The only thing remaining is to go through Sasata's review and earmark the items that I never got around to addressing. There were a number useful insights that I had to put on hold, given the momentum of his comments. And to be honest, I just ran out of steam and needed to take a break. Well, I've had my break and so I'm ready when you are to give it another burst of energy and finally submit it as a featured article candidate.

I therefore propose to:

1. Identify the remaining items from Sasata's review that still need to be addressed, and
2. Add any other minor items that bug me or I think could use improvement,

after which we can tackle the remaining items and get the article submitted for FA. Does that work for you? If so, give me a week or so and I will hopefully have a list of final items for you and I to discuss.--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me/sounds like a plan then.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Casliber. Sorry for the delay in getting to this in a timely manner. Life unexpectedly threw me a few curve balls since the last post and I had to adapt quick. Hopefully, in the next few days, I'll be back on track. Thanks for your patience and understanding.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Me ditto, my free time has been cut to ribbons over jan/Feb. Take your time and sort out what you need to :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Earth calling Sadalsuud....

Hi Sadalsuud, if you're around I thought it was about time we finally nailed Betelgeuse. Whatever happens I'll list you as a co-nominator at FAC for all the monster amount of work you put into this article. Hope you have some spare time....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Casliber. Sorry I've been so out of touch. Good to hear from you. Never told you this, but like a lot of people, the financial meltdown of 2009 turned my business upside down; so that's why I've been mostly inactive. I had to focus on rebuilding. Oddly enough, Betelgeuse in the summer of 2010 was actually therapy for me, a way to get my mind off off things.

So let's do it. Let's take Betelgeuse over the goal line this time. I've not followed the changes in the last 2 years; so what I propose is I will import it into MS Word, compare it to the last document I worked on and evaluate all the changes. I suspect most have been useful, but there may be some that are questionable. At the very minimum, this will get me up to speed with the article so I can make some useful contributions. Don't have as much time as I did, but will be happy to contribute what I can. Give me a week. As soon as I'm done with my initial overview, I'll post a list of things to discuss.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I will also need to look at Sasata's review. I recall that there were a dozen or so items we never fully addressed. So it will be good to complete that task as well.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay - I made some other changes per, this feedback which gelled with some feedback here. I'll leave everything till you've digested where everything's at - give me a ping and we can move forward from there.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've been so remiss in doing my end. Been ridiculously busy. Promise that I will have my part done by Sunday night. Thanks for your patience. --Sadalsuud (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Casliber. OK. Got a few things done over the weekend. It was quite fun getting back into after so long. Anyway, I'm still going through each of these lists: FAC readiness and Betelgeuse redux. There's quite a lot to do still, so I'll keep on chipping away at it in the next week, reporting back on any issues that would be worthwhile to discuss. I'm also in the process of compiling my own list of issues that need to be addressed, but let's first focus on these two, clear the slate, after which I'll post mine. If you have a chance, you can look at my changes over the weekend and post any comments. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: In case you didn't see it, I did think of a couple of things - what do you reckon? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

update

I guess you've been busy again in Real Life...was re-looking over the Review for FAC readiness to see where we were up to - I think I see one of your need to research tags which you haven't appended ("This finding of a diminishing radius coupled with a relatively constant flux puts into question some of the fundamental theories of stellar structure" segment), but otherwise looks all done (???) Most importantly I guess is whether you feel you've got everything you want in it in the shape you want it. Looks great to me but your familiarity with your input will make you the best judge at this point. FAC can be unpredictably time-consuming..and the risk of this rises sharply with the size of the article going under the microscope, so the best time is some time where one has a bit of flexibility and breathing space to deal with comments and queries as they arise. (i.e. there's no time limit, so waiting is no drama at all) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Casliber. Sorry about that. It's been bugging me that I had to let things drop for awhile. As you point out, real life can get pretty demanding at times. Regarding the article, I think you're right. We're pretty much there. There are two things remaining: First, it appears that Townes has conceded that the 15% photospheric contraction observed from 1993 to 2008 was due to huge convection cells bulging out from the star's surface. The phraseology in the articles I have read is rather challenging. So I will need to do a little more reading to make sure. In all likelihood, some changes will need to be made in 3 or 4 places in the article, which I promise to do this week. Second, I intend to update the starbox (plus related sections in the article) with the most recent data and references. It's amazing how much research is being done on Betelgeuse, and so some of the info we have is already out of date. Once done on both counts, I will post you. After that, it's your call. Thanks again for your patience on this.--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey don't apologise, you've done an amazing amount on this - so take your time and make sure your RL stuff is all cool. I'll keep an eye and see if I can find any more cultural stuff, otherwise when you've added/updated everything you want and have some free time, we can take a shot at FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the ongoing support. This has been quite the project. I think most of what I wanted to do is now complete. What follows is a list of final changes.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's Sunday morning here so not sure how much time I have (days can be pretty busy) - had internet connectivity problems last night which were a major pain in the neck :/ ....now to start reading....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

List of final changes

1. Starbox. I was uncomfortable with the fact that the Starbox Detail Section was missing some solid and current references (luminosity specifically). On page 2, Table#1, of the recent Mohamed article, there is an awesome table that gives us the references we need. Unfortunately, even this has some problems with it as Mohamed assumes a stellar disk of 1,200 Solar, which given my calculations is actually larger that the Jovian orbit of 5.5 AU. Also, as you will see with the Angular size discussion in Note 2 below, 5.5 AU may no longer be consensus. Furthermore, I'm not thrilled with Mohamed's temperature summary either @ 3,300K (a number he derived from Harper 2001), since Perrin in 2004 showed 3,641K. Conclusion? There's still a lot of uncertainty with these parameters. But given Mohamed's recent publication (i.e. 2012), incorporating his details into our starbox is probably the best way to go. What do you think?

Yes it's tricky. He gives some discussion on figures he uses on page 14 - the paper is mainly a mathematical paper using (presumably) consensus figures. Given he's in the field I suspect his choices might be the best-informed. I'll re-read some of the target papers again to re-familiarise myself...but leaning "yes" we use his. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My sense of it is we are not going to see a "perfect solution". This table is as good as it gets. And with the Gaia Mission coming up next year, everything is going to change anyway. So I'm just thinking FAC... doing what it takes to cross the goal line. In the end, I think we've done a good job of highlighting all the subtle nuances of this star, which makes the article a valuable contribution on the internet. I've not seen anything like it, except for the numerous websites that are now plagiarizing it.--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

2. Angular size. Check out the 2nd to last paragraph in the Angular size section. It has been modified significantly pursuant to the conclusions reached in the Ravi/Townes article. I think I did a fair job (as a non-astrophysicist) in interpreting their findings. But your insights here will be valuable. To make sure, we may want an astrophysicist to review these conclusions. Anyway, when you look at the Ravi/Townes article, go to page 7: Section 4 - Conclusions and Future Work. I don't know how you read that section. But it seems to me that the Berkeley group is coming to the conclusion that their measurements since 1993 have been measuring a shell and not the photosphere itself, which is what Perrin was basically saying in 2004. Look at the paragraph that starts with "Across the Atlantic...". Perrin was saying that certain wavelengths could not penetrate through the molecular clouds surrounding Betelgeuse to perceive the photosphere, and so it seems like Ravi is agreeing here. What do you think? Bottom line: Are you comfortable with the way I've crafted this last paragraph? I've taken a cautious approach (i.e. This conclusion, if further corroborated, would suggest...) I don't think we want to jump the gun here and say that the radius "is" 5.5 AU. We'll let the reader make that determination. Any thoughts?

Looks ok - just noticed the mention of alumina dust in that conclusion as well which might be worth double-checking, and also how temperature change changes opacity, but looks good. Makes me ponder the difficulties of ascribing constructs such as "surface" and radius" to an irregular shedding body such as this, and I am hoping that comes across to readers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point! I thought we were pretty explicit in the Angular size section, but when I went back and read it, I noticed that we didn't use the word "surface" at all. So I changed "edge of the photosphere" to "surface of the star".--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

3. 'Recent studies. The Recent studies section made reference to Townes as well, and has been modified accordingly.

Looks ok - I do wonder whether this is a tad duplicative, but on the other hand, having a concise summary of developments is good too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

4. Properties. Made a lot of modifications to both the temperature and luminosity discussion in the Properties intro section. Clearly, what is said here now needs to be consistent with the new Starbox information.

Agreed. I've rejigged for flow here too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

5. Ethnological attributes. I did a little tweeking here and there, as you'll see. Couldn't resist adding the sentence on synchronicity in the Popular culture section. Delete the sentence if you think it's inappropriate. I just find these kinds of connections intriguing, having studied Jung for years. Otherwise, the whole section looks great. It has really come a long way and looks great.

Nice sentence - did the idea come from some commentary though. It'll need to have a source to survive FAC....The no original research rules here can take some getting used to.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right on that one, so we'll delete it when we get to that point. I'm virtually certain we won't find any reference to back up that statement. Having spent a few years studying Jung, I was always intrigued by his notion of synchronicity, and so it's just a thought that popped into my head seeing the odd connections here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

6. Notes. I'm not happy with the Notes section anymore. These notes were originally produced in 2010 given the debate (i.e. uncertainty) around Betelgeuse's angular diameter, an important component in determining the star's luminosity. With the 2012 Ravi/Townes article, it appears that this debate may be nearing a conclusion. To anticipate this, the note section will require a little tweeking to maintain its relevancy. I'm still learning TeX, so we'll do the best we can. I'll post you when this is complete.

7. Herschel. I noticed your thoughts on Herschel 3 months late, so went ahead and incorporated your basic ideas.

be interesting to find out if these have been the only times Betelgeuse has been brighter than Rigel. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Intriguing thought. It hadn't occurred to me that it may not have happened since.--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

8. Some minor items. There are a few other minor items I will be getting to in the next few days. Also, I want to do one last read through, to make sure all the changes are consistent. Once finished, I will let you know.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

9. Remaining details:

• Coronal Plasma. The sentence on coronal plasma was essentially deleted. Need to find better refs. This might be one: Electric Cosmology, but it's going to require more research.
• Clarification Needed. Need to study Note 7 and related material.
• Mass Loss Rate. Need to study Mohamed Table 1, Mass Loss rate and supporting article. Looks like material information.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to add more stuff to the list. This article has a way of growing on you, eh? (Sorry for the terrible pun!). But I have to say, this is truly an amazing star. Also this is the first time I saw a mass loss rate for Betelgeuse. I had been using the ESO figure of 1 solar every 10,000 years, but it looks like ~2-4 solar every 100,000 years is what Mohamed is reporting... big difference. Anyway, I need to read the referenced article, just to make sure. Now that it's a Starbox ref, it will likely get noticed... hence more work. What can I say... this article has become a career!!!--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• (chuckle) funny thing about these ones on the equator visible everywhere - I woke up at 5am a few days ago to show my daughter Jupiter and Venus thru a telescope and was looking at Orion too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Cool... synchronicity...???
    • not a bad album... ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Details, details

OK. I think we're finally done and ready for FAC. The bottom line is that this article will need to be constantly reworked every 1-2 years, given the amount of research that is going on and the apparent lack of consensus on many topics. So as far as today is concerned, I believe the article does a good job of presenting all sides. Here's a list of the remaining details that needed to be addressed:

1. Coronal Plasma. Researched the issue and omitted the sentence altogether. The refs I was contemplating would have been too controversial, so best to stay clear of that discussion.

ok, not as if the article is lacking elsewhere..so no problem. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

2. Mass Loss Rate. Although Mohamed Table 1, shows a low mass loss rate of 2 - 4 ×10−6 M_⊙ yr−1, the information is derived from Smith 2009, which in turn is derived from Harper & Brown 2006. In reading that article, Harper is rather inconclusive on the subject. Here's the quote:

The physical processes responsible for mass loss from early M supergiants remain to be identified. Silicate dust shells are formed,or become detectable, far from the stellar surfaces (Danchi et al.1994), and radiation pressure on atoms and molecules is not sufficient. However, these stars do have healthy winds with ˙M ~ 2 x 10⁶ M_⊙ yr^-1. If magnetic fields heat the chromosphere, then perhaps magnetic processes are responsible for mass loss from these stars. This may also be true for more dusty stars, where charged dust can very efficiently damp Alfve´n waves (Havnes et al. 1989).

ESO's mass loss estimate in 2009 is 1 M_⊙ every 10,000 years. This information is based on Kervella 2009 and Onaka 2009. Moreover, Harper talks about "healthy stellar winds" while Kervella speaks of "episodic mass loss". Are they in fact speaking of slightly different phenomena? Seems so. Clearly, we have different researchers producing different numbers. In conclusion, I would think that ESO would have incorporated Harper's findings if they were conclusive, and so we're probably better off staying with the ESO article as a our main reference. Any thoughts?

weird....one estimate is 200 times the other......I'll re-read..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! If there is any one astronomical concept that distinguishes Betelgeuse, it's mass loss. That's why the star is so studied. So your thoughts on this one point will be valuable.--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Weird....Harper & Brown 2006 are pretty cautious and discount themselves anyway. Smith 2009 is interesting, but also mentions assuming a "spherically symmetric and homogeneous wind with a constant mass-loss rate," (seems not to gell with subsequent findings). I think I agree with you on how it's written as the star is uneven...question is whether to put this study as a footnote...will read again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Everywhere else in the article we've attempted to explain the "current inquiry" and where there is ambiguity, we address it. To remain silent on this issue would be inconsistent. I await your last remarks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been staring at the Betelgeuse#Circumstellar_dynamics section trying to figure out where to put it as a footnote or what/how to do this and not really come up with anything like a natural flow. Maybe the best place is a footnote after "possibly as much as 1M☉ every 10,000 years," advising of an earlier estimate based on an even output. It is easier to take out rather than put in when at FAC. I feel slightly better about it being in than not WRT comprehensiveness and a full picture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the most logical spot, I agree. Neither the Smith 2009 nor the Harper & Brown 2006 articles have been referenced yet; so pick whichever you think is more germane along with a quote and that should do it. In the final analysis, almost every article I've read on mass loss begins with a statement similar to "There are yet many mysteries to be solved...". In reading Smith, I notice that he does talk about episodic mass loss, but seems to suggest that it's random, unpredictable and unquantifiable. That's the sense I get. So quantifying mass loss could be a mystery that will remain with us for some time.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd use Smith 2009 - Harper really doesn't discuss it much at all, at least Smith is trying to calculate some numbers...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

3. Betelgeuse Age. You'll notice that I revised the age down from 10 million years to 7.3 million based on the Wolfram ref and ESO.

wolfram alpha is a tertiary source like EoL or us, but ESO is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point! The problem was I couldn't find any other primary sources that provided a definitive age, and ESO as you noticed is non-committal... "with an age of only a few million years". In summary, I felt we were better off going with a lower number than Kaler's 10 million. I will do one more search with ADS and if I find a primary source, I'll definitely post it.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Just spent some time researching ADS. Nothing that we haven't seen before - the most noteworthy being the ESO ref. Google turns up a lot of secondary and tertiary refs. But if ESO is non-committal, there's probably a reason. So I think we're fine with the way this is worded.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

procedural agree Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

4. Starbox.I did a final review of all the Starbox items and their refs. Everything's current, so that's good. Tried to put the two apparent magnitudes (V and J passbands) in the same place, but the starbox won't let me. Any ideas?

I've not used the starbox much so am not experienced with it, maybe ask at astronomy wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm! I decided to wing it, googled Starbox template and found this: Template:Starbox character. Works nice! --Sadalsuud (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

5. Clarification Needed. The Atmospheric Density discussion (i.e. Note #7) was finally reworked and clarification tags removed pursuant to suggestions made by User:84user back in Feb 2011. I think the new arguments are defensible. Take a look and let me know.

The thing I worry about here is the Wikipedia:No original research rules....I understand what is done for clarity and it does that really well, but question is whether someone interpreting the rules construe it as Original Research....this can be a frustrating aspect here at wikipedia.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there. As you know, not having gone through FAC, there's still a lot for me to learn. What I like about this whole section on size and density is that it brings everything back to a human scale. It's so easy with astronomy to just get lost in concepts − i.e. Betelgeuse has an average density of 1.576 × 10⁻⁵ kg/m³ compared to a solar density of 10³ kg/m³. In the end, what do those numbers mean? So that's why I became fascinated with doing what is nothing more than high school math. You'll never see this kind of stuff in a research paper published by A&A. There's obviously no need for it. And if high school math is construed as "original research"... Hmmm!... that seems pretty weird. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. I just really enjoyed doing this math as it helped me put everything into perspective and that's why I think it's a valuable contribution to the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

6. Researching etymology. I found what I think could be an amazing resource. If you have time, I'd like for you to check it out and give me your opinion. It was created by Professor Mustafa Pultar and is entitled YILDIZ ADLARI SÖZLÜĞÜ (Dictionary of Star Names). The only problem is that it's in Turkish, though Google Translate does a decent job of translating. What's interesting is Prof. Pultar researched Ottomon seafarers from way back and so compiled a list of names used from that era. Check it out and let me know what you think.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

good find! will look.....you're right, there is some interesting stuff there. Tricky bit is ensuring google translate doesn't accidentally translate the names, so flipping back and forth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ya, seems really promising. As you already noticed, I posted the same info at WikiProject Astronomy to invite discussion and hopefully come to some consensus... before I go hog-wild with it, Yuk, Yuk! I already used it with this new article I created: Lambda Pegasi. It was the only ref I could find.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

....So are you ready for the snake pit.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Chuckle... I hope so. We've worked hard enough to get here, haven't we? Ready whey you are.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

bombs away.... now we wait.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just read it. Thanks for the compliments. Without your valuable input and guidance, I would have been lost. So thanks again. It's been great working with you, it's been an amazing ride and let's see what happens next.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How FAC works

Okay, so Betelgeuse is listed at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Betelgeuse/archive1 and the first reviewer has listed some issues. Generally the quicker these are addressed the better. I've done some minor ones and am working my way through so feel free to comment and get stuck into it...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the heads-up! I will get to it shortly. That was a quick response, wasn't it? I thought it might be a few weeks before we heard anything.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Corona Australis Molecular Cloud

By the way, I noticed you're FAC posting for Corona Australis. Impressive! Seeing as we're winding down with Betelgeuse, why don't you give me a week and I'll come up with a decent Start article for the molecular cloud. That red link really sticks out like a sore thumb. Anyway, with a little work, your Featured article can link to a useful article instead of a stub. I'll let you know when I have something in my Sandbox for you to look at. If you like it, then I can import it over and create the article. Sound like a plan?--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! Now the good thing is that this thesis is at the university next to where I work on Tuesday and thursday. The annoying thing was when I got it to look at it was in 3 volumes and they gave me volume III which was very technical.....I'll take a look at volume I and II next week. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds pretty amazing! Three Volumes!!! I'm just gathering info at this point. Already found a few pictures, will be uploading others. It will be interesting to work on this. As soon as I have something worth looking at, I'll let you know.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Good progress at Betelgeuse

You guys have done a staggering amount of work over the last year, and I'm very impressed. You're close to the end of my list of issues. I wonder if you are ready to have another look at the "star system" section for reworking? Or you just adopt my brief text suggested at FAC :-) Don't sweat much on the photosphere issue or the notes, the latter for which I think Cas or another editor might come up solutions. If we can nail "star system", that to me is the last major job done. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. It's much appreciated. I hope to finish up in the next 48 hours. I'll try to get to the Star system section tonight. I agree with you wholeheartedly. It needs work. I just want to make sure that I answer lingering questions that are out there as to why there was a big announcement about a companion star and then total silence for years. I think you'll be happy with the results. Also, thanks a lot for all your work. It's a real pleasure working with folks inside of Wikipedia who've been doing this for awhile. I've learned a lot working with Casliber and others in the last 2 years. It's a lot of fun.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it amazing how the chance of things needing fixing seems to go up exponentially with even a moderate increase in size and coverage. I figured there were going to be alotta tweaks with this baby. My impression of the companion is that someone got excited over some data but others have not been able to repeat it somehow. Now to double check on the size.....(of the star not the article....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: I should add that some of the big articles I've worked on have had their own special magic which makes them great fun...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sadalsuud. You have new messages at Keilana's talk page.
Message added 23:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rogelio Bernal Andreo

Hello! Your submission of Rogelio Bernal Andreo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sasata (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rogelio Bernal Andreo

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I have seen few FAC noms as epic and technical as for Betelgeuse, and I congratulate you and Casliber for getting this intriguing star over the FA line. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been a lot of fun working on this one - and quite the learning curve to say the least. Thanks your insights at the outset of FAC. They helped us whip the article into shape rather quickly, after which it was mostly MoS. Looking forward, I have one question: Betelgeuse is the focus of considerable research and will need to be updated on a regular basis. How do you suggest we tackle that issue?--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sadalsuud. You have new messages at Modest Genius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Modest Genius ^talk 17:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Betelgeuse

This is a note to let the main editors of Betelgeuse know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 26, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 26, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Betelgeuse photographed with the Hubble space telescope

Betelgeuse is the eighth brightest star in the night sky and second brightest in the constellation of Orion, only rarely outshining Rigel. It is a distinctly reddish, semiregular variable star whose apparent magnitude varies between 0.2 and 1.2, the widest range of any first-magnitude star. Betelgeuse's name is thought to be derived from the Arabic يد الجوزاء Yad al-Jauzā' meaning "the Hand of al-Jauzā'", i.e., Orion. It is classified as a red supergiant of spectral type M2Iab and is one of the largest and most luminous known stars. If positioned at the center of the Solar System, its surface would extend past the asteroid belt, possibly beyond the orbit of Jupiter, at least wholly engulfing Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Less than 10 million years old, Betelgeuse has evolved rapidly because of its high mass. Ejected from its birthplace in the Orion OB1 Association, this crimson runaway has been observed moving through the interstellar medium at a supersonic speed of 30 km/sec, creating a bow shock over 4 light-years wide. Now in a late stage of stellar evolution, the supergiant is expected to proceed through its life cycle before exploding as a type II supernova within the next million years. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Precious

bright star
Thank you for driving the luminous star Betelgeuse to new quality, "incorporating large segments of fascinating material and new understanding of this star", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 316th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Seven years ago, you were the 316th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

	Merry antipodean Xmas
	hope yours is/was fun, and you had a good turkey :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"Sadalpheretz" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sadalpheretz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 23 § Sadalpheretz until a consensus is reached. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)