Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andromeda (constellation)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 15:47, 2 June 2012 [1].

Andromeda (constellation)

[edit]

Andromeda (constellation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 01:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's been thoroughly worked up by Hurricanehink (GA) and Malleus Fatuorum (PR) and I think it's the most comprehensive treatment of the subject on the Internet. Thanks for your consideration and reviews. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor modifications. I am reviewing on 1a-e; though without paraphrasing/verification check. Iridia (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Andromeda is most prominent during autumn evenings in the Northern Hemisphere" - clarify that it is too far north to be visible in most of the Southern Hemisphere, per WP:SYSTEMATIC - I notice this was brought up in the GA review. "Due to its northern declination, it can only be viewed as far south as 37 deg latitude, southward of which it is below the horizon." Or some such.
  • Added a similar sentence, how does it look now?
  • That's fine. Technically it can't be viewed southward of 53 deg, not 40: the equation is phi - 90; but that allows for the ten degrees or so of stuff like trees that tends to obscure the horizon, so it seems reasonable. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "founded Mycenae, originating the Persideae dynasty" - 'originating' is a little awkward.
  • Reworded as "founded Mycenae and its Persideae dynasty".
  • "although it is now defined as a specific region of the sky including both Ptolemy's pattern and the surrounding stars" - probably worth clarifying that being defined as a specific region of the sky is how all modern constellations are defined, eg. "although like all modern constellations, it is"
  • I like that wording, so I went with it.
  • The para on Hubble's use of M31 is oddly placed; it should be together with its subject further down.
  • I'm concerned here about cluttering up the deep-sky objects section; do you think that would be a problem?
  • "An Arab constellation called "al-Hut" (the fish)" - better suited to the other cultures section.
  • I moved it to before the Hindus. Is that an ok placement?
  • "Andromeda does not contain any globular clusters or bright nebulae because of its location above the plane of the Milky Way. However, because it lies in a direction away from our home galaxy, Andromeda is home to many galaxies and planetary nebulae." Several issues here. Clarify that the constellation doesn't contain any of the Milky Way's globular clusters or nebulae. Clarify that the plane of the Milky Way is dense with stars and obscuring gas. Clarify that the area of sky is not near the plane. Clarify which objects are within and without the Milky Way. There is that big gorgeous image of M31 over on the right which is then immediately discussed, and that's also 'Andromeda'. I think within this section, it should only be referred to as M31, never Andromeda Galaxy or even Great Galaxy, to prevent reader confusion.
  • OK, I've reworded that part to reflect this. I've also tried to clarify when I'm talking about the constellation and when I'm talking about the galaxy, but I'm a little wary of becoming redundant. Would you mind taking another look at this section?
  • wikilink Messier 31
  • Done.
  • "However, it was centuries before the first observations of M31 were made with a telescope" - so as soon as telescopes were invented, it was observed. That's not really surprising....
  • Obvious sentence is obvious. I rewrote it as "M31 was first observed telescopically shortly after its invention by Simon Marius, who observed it in 1612."
  • "The Andromeda Galaxy's two main companions" - This paragraph offers a nice opportunity to lead into some missing information: M31 and its neighbours show extensive interaction and there are many more dwarf galaxies there than the ones that are mentioned. A plot like this to illustrate would be great (consider asking the authors if the copyright isn't immediately clear).
  • There's no obvious copyright or lack thereof for that image. I've searched through Commons and found nothing like that. I did dig up some information on M31's satellites and added a couple sentences.
  • In that case, drop the contact author on that paper a nice email asking if a version of the figure could be made available, as it's for outreach (astro jargon for 'telling the public what we do'). The interaction covers such a large area of the sky (which was the main finding of that PANDaS survey) that it counts as significant in the constellation. Nice work adding the info on the satellites. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not overly comfortable about the use of Universe Today, Space.com and Meteor Showers Online when peer-reviewed papers on the meteor shower are likely to exist. Was an ADS search done for that?
  • I've replaced the Universe Today citation and the Meteor Showers Online citation. However, the Space.com article is by Peter Jenniskens, who wrote one of the other sources I replaced it with. Nevertheless, I can find another citation for that information if you want.
  • I see from other citations (including in that paragraph) that you have access to his major book; can that be used to cite all the information instead? If it can't, in that case it can stand. Thank you for adding the AJ paper. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually only have access through Google Books right now, though I know the book is in the local community college's library. I'll see what I can do in the next few days - I'm a bit busy until Tuesday. Since the FAC will likely still be running then, is it OK if we let it stand now and I run off and get the book in a few days? Keilana|Parlez ici 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "representing astrologically something honorable" - something?
  • Yeah, that's as specific as the source got. I reworded it as "representing honor in astrology and a great general in mythology".
  • - much better
  • The External links could probably be pruned more tightly.
  • I cut it down to two.

Nice tight summary of what could be quite an overwhelming topic. Iridia (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Reference: Ridpath 2001 does not exist in Bibliography
  • Reference: Bakich is formatted differently, not harv
  • I think Malleus fixed that recently. Is it resolved now?

--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Complete Manual of Amateur Astronomy: Tools and Techniques for Astronomical Observations is mentioned twice in Bibliography. I realized this while fixing a ref
  • Rey, H. A. (1997) is not used.
  • Organization: "In non-Western astronomy" can be merged in "History and mythology" as its History and mythology is discussed there too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Rey and one of the Manuals; I also made "In non-Western astronomy" a subsection for "History and mythology". Keilana|Parlez ici 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fix "Koed & Sherrod 2003". No Koed now??? --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. That's weird. I added Koed back, should be fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the ref sequence. Now harv link is fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - Would it be possible to create paragraphs in the lead? Readability is difficult. The star list would also be much clearer with a line break between each entry, in edit mode it's quite difficult to navigate (a sea of unbroken text). The meteor shower should be briefly mentioned in the lead. Content and referencing look very good. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put breaks in the lead and the list. I hope that helps. I also added a sentence about the Andromedids to the lead. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the break in the lead, having introduced the paragraphs. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Thanks. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Would be nice if a way could be found to avoid repetition of the word 'shower' so close together, perhaps pipe Andromedids or think of another word for the second instance (...annual event..?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded that sentence as " Andromeda is the location of the radiant for the Andromedids, a weak meteor shower that occurs in November." Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commnent - Footnotes #27, 57, 59 contain links to refs, but the links do not work. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, they work for me. Not sure what's going on here. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed them. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be why. Thank you so much! Keilana|Parlez ici 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First impressions are very good. Do we know roughly when Andromeda was first described as a constellation, yearwise? I think the earliest year mentioned in the article is 1787; it is mentioned that it is included in the work of Ptolemy, but a rough year would be good. Were there any earlier mentions? Simon Burchell (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kind of hard for us to pin down. I'm pretty sure the first writing we can find is Ptolemy, but a similar figure was mentioned in Babylonian works, as is mentioned in the "Non-Western astronomy" section. As of right now, the only date mentioned is in reference to the Almagest as "2nd century", and this is as specific as my sources get. What do you think? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's all there is - but it would be good to mention the 2nd century in the "History" section as well as the lead. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Lead: 1st sentence: I'd recommend that the first two sentences be flipped, so the 1st sentence says "A is a constellation in the N hemisphere representing a princess ...; and the 2nd sentence says "It is one of the 48 ...".
  • China/Hindu confusion: "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four different constellations that had astrological and mythological significance, and were also part of a similar constellation in Hindu mythology. " - Needs to be clarified. as it stands, it implies that Hindu Mythology is a subset of Chinese astronomy.
  • Reworded as "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four different constellations that had astrological and mythological significance; a constellation related to Andromeda also exists in Hindu mythology." Keilana|Parlez ici 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword: " ... a weak November shower." - I know what you mean here, but that may throw some readers for a loop. Maybe "a weak meteor shower which occurs in November".
  • Reword: "in the Greek tradition, a female figure in Andromeda's place .." - What does "place" mean here? in that location in the sky? or in that position in the tradition?
  • Confusing: "American astronomer Edwin Hubble included what was then known as the Andromeda Nebula in his groundbreaking 1923 research on galaxies." - (1) this could be read as the Nebula is the constellation; (2) I think the narrative here is shifting from the constellation to its most important component: the galaxy, correct? If so, that shift needs to be explicit.
  • Consider a disambig hatnote at the top of the article: especially for contrast to Andromeda galaxy.
  • Deep-sky objects - Flip first 2 sentences: order should be: (1) A is not in the plane of our MW galaxy, but instead is "above" the plane: (2) thus the stuff from MW is not within A's borders; (3) thus A contains mostly things far away.
  • Clarify: "It is an enormous – 192.4 by 62.2 arcminutes ..." - I presume the "enormous" is referring to the apparent size in the sky, not the absolute size?
  • Wording: "Despite being visible to the naked eye, the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure was first recorded in 964 C.E." - Not sure what "despite" does here. Perhaps reword to "..was not recorded until .." if that is the intention?
  • Wording: ", but that connection is somewhat disputed." - I think "somewhat" should be removed.
  • Star list: The list of stars probably cannot be improved upon, although lists are a bit off-putting. Consider moving it to the bottom of the article?
  • I could potentially prosify it, but I feel like it would end up being the same thing, just without bullet points. Not to be argumentative (I feel like I'm being so!) but I did want to group all of the objects - stars and deep-sky. I'm also not sure what moving the stars would do to the flow of the article. Perhaps moving the "Non-Western astronomy" section to after "History and mythology" would help with this. Thoughts? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree a bullet approach is acceptable. I was thinking of moving the "Objects" section to the bottom; and the "stars" subsection to the bottom within Objects. But it is not a show-stopper for FA. --Noleander (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, or perhaps just moving it to after "Deep-sky objects". What do you think is the most useful? Keilana|Parlez ici 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either way seems okay. Aesthetically, in my opinion, all bullet lists should be pushed as far towards the bottom of the article as practical. --Noleander (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity: "M32, visible with a far smaller size of 8.7 by 6.4 arcminutes,.." - Not clear what other object is being compared for "smaller". The prior sentence names several objects.
  • Standard layout of stars? - Based on the illustrations in the article, it appears that there is not a standard (uniform, universal) layout of how the lady's body aligns with the stars. That should probably be mentioned somewhere. Or say something like "A's body is typically represented as ... or sometimes as ..." or similar.
  • I mentioned after the bit about the Almagest that we get our typical depiction there but it's fairly varied. I cited that to Staal because he offers a comparison of several different depictions. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obsolete? - "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four .." - Does that imply that those consts are no longer used in China? If so, reword to "In traditional Chinese astronomy ... " or something to distinguish from modern.
  • Unqualify: " The most famous deep-sky object in Andromeda is the spiral galaxy named ..." - Probably should remove "deep-sky".
  • Images -> commons: Image File:Andromedaurania.jpg is in WP, not in the commons. Not sure if FA requires that images be in commons (except for images requiring fair-use notes). In any case, it should be moved to commons.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Thank you for addressing my concerns. Comments – It looks good but I have a few concerns:

  • "She was chained to a rock ... who used the head of Medusa to turn the monster into stone and subsequently married Andromeda...": subject change. Please move the "subsequently married Andromeda" into the "The myth recounts that the couple..." sentence.
  • "...but has since become obsolete": I think a better statement would be that it was not widely adopted.
  • It calls "δ And" a "K3 class[10] orange giant"; orange is redundant here. Also, why is this one identified as a giant but not the earlier giant and bright giant stars?
  • Removed "orange"; I was going on what my sources gave me. Only one (Ridpath, I think) classified them as "giant" or not. I'm not sure what database, if any, would have that data. I'll keep searching. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usually you can get the spectral classification from SIMBAD. Most of the star articles have a link to that database, or you can go there and do a lookup.
  • "μ And is a white star"; "π And is a blue-white binary star"; "56 And is ... a G-type (yellow) giant ... secondary is a K-type (orange) giant". Can the star classifications be presented in a consistent manner?
  • What did you have in mind? I see several options for this. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concern I have with listing the colors is that they are very subjective. The color can vary depending on the size of the scope, nearby comparison stars, and the observer. By comparison, stellar classification is more objective because it's based on the spectrum/temperature. I'd suggest listing at least the general stellar class (A-type, K-type, ...) and the name of the luminosity class (main sequence, giant, bright giant, ...). I don't think "orange giant" is standard usage and may even be confusing to some; to me it seems better to say something like "orange-hued giant star of type K0", for example.
  • "The constellation of Andromeda lies well away from the galactic plane, so it does not contain any of the globular clusters or bright nebulae of the Milky Way": being located away from the galactic plane has little to do with whether it has any globular clusters. It does have to do with whether it has any open clusters.

A few more comments:

  • "Because of its distance in the sky from the band of obscuring dust, gas, and abundant stars of our home galaxy, Andromeda's borders contain many distant galaxies": the lack of attenuation is why they're visible; it's not the reason they exist.
  • "Despite being visible to the naked eye, the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure was first recorded in 964 C.E. by the Arab astronomer al-Sufi...": He saw it even though it is visible to the naked eye? The wording might need a tweak.

Okay I'm done. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, a few brief comments for now, maybe more later if time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with RJH that something on 'the IAU conventions and when they came to be' would be useful. It should be possible to find out the year or approximate year that the IAU began publishing the modern definitions of constellations (and specifically the definition of Andromeda). This is something I've tried to look up on Wikipedia before, and it is something that does seem to be lacking generally from Wikipedia articles. Whether this is because the IAU stuff is mostly not online or is just too obscure, I'm not sure.
  • The 'Urania's Mirror' picture is not (as far as I can tell) an example of non-Western astronomy, so shouldn't be used in that section. There is a fair amount of information available about Urania's Mirror, so you could double-check the year as more recent research might have clarified that.
  • The image caption for the Johannes Hevelius depiction should include the year of publication, or some other indication of when it dates from.
  • Done. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't seem to have been done? The image file says 1690, but it is the article image caption that I'm looking to see that date in. Also best to check whether the image scanned here is from the original (first) edition, or a later edition and/or state. Some of these celestial atlases went through a large number of editions and/or states, with errors corrected and/or added over the years. Though that sort of detail is mainly of interest to those who collect such publications, some of which fetch quite a lot of money! Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could have sworn I did that...Damn wiki eating my edits. It should have gone through now! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither the Urania's Mirror depiction nor the Hevelius depiction are mentioned in the main text of the article. It is unclear whether these are random depictions picked out to illustrate the article because they were available, or whether they were chosen for a reason. In general, it is the history of the constellation that seems to be lacking in this article. Between the time of Ptolemy and the IAU there is a vast span of history for this and other constellations. It would be possible to write a paragraph or two about some of the more famous celestial atlases that were published (such as Bode's 'Uranographia and Bayer's Uranometria and Flamsteed's Atlas Coelestis), and how the depiction of Andromeda varied between them. There is some published literature on this, though again rather obscure. I'll try and dig out some references if I have time. There is also the Poeticon astronomicon of Hyginus.
  • You might also want to check the orientation of the Hevelius and Urania's Mirror images. The orientation between them isn't consistent (as can be seen from the position of the head and feet and the Triangulum constellation). I'm not sure what the convention is on Wikipedia articles, but if the image orientation (direction of celestial north) is different to that of the constellation diagram in the infobox, the image caption should mention this to avoid confusion.
  • I'm pretty sure there's a sentence in there about how different stars were used to represent different parts of our chained lady here. I'm actually really concerned about the Urania's Mirror images now, as I did some research and found where I believe they were taken from [2]. The author (Ian Ridpath) states that the images there - identical to the set uploaded by User:Urania's Muse - is under copyright, even though the cards were created in 1825. I'm not an expert on copyright, as all I know is that close paraphrasing and copying is bad, but this smells fishy. I'm not entirely sure what to do here. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unlikely that they are still under copyright if they were published circa 1825. He may be referring to the scans he made being copyrighted, which is not true for 2D material (it is true for 3D material, or angled shots of 2D material), but it is more courteous to scan from originals than to take someone else's scans of public domain material without permission (if the scans are from from someone else's website, rather than scanned from originals that someone owns, that absolutely has to be stated and acknowledged on the image page - even if copyright can't be asserted over the scans, the source has to be credited to establish provenance (the image equivalent of WP:SAY WHERE YOU GOT IT FROM). If you are concerned, do get someone to check that. About the orientation, I'm not talking about different stars being placed in different parts of the Andromeda figure (or even in adjacent constellations), but the east-west orientation. The Hevelius image is the constellation as seen when looking at the celestial sphere from the outside (west at left, east at right). All the other images show Andromeda as seen from the inside of the celestial sphere, i.e. as seen from looking up into the sky from the surface of the Earth (west at right, east at left). Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense. And explains why I never work at CCI! I've specified in the captions where the constellation is being viewed from now. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have room for another picture. Maybe of the meteor shower, or an example of a deep-sky object not visible to the naked eye (I'm sure there is a gorgeous Hubble image around somewhere of one of those objects)?
  • One more thought: are there any published figures on the number of stars and deep-sky objects in this constellation as recorded in various modern catalogues?
  • Not in the sources I have right now. Maybe Burnham's Celestial Handbook? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I asked is that something should be said (briefly) on how the perception of the universe changed over time, from stars thought to be contained on a crystal sphere in unchanging skies, to the modern view that space is immense with the stars varying distances from Earth, and the telescope revealing steadily more and more stars (the numbers increasing as you go from the first telescopes up to the modern era), with today's telescopes revealing the deep-sky objects. The trouble is, I think most catalogue statistics on this tend to cover the whole sky (numbers of stars of each magnitude and so on), not individual constellations. But I thought something should be said on how perceptions and numbers changed over time (from x stars identified by Ptolemy, to the numbers in a modern catalogue). The same can be said of each constellation, and the overall history is covered at celestial cartography, but there may be some way to touch on this without overdoing it.

    The other thoughts were: identifying the nearest object to Earth in this constellation (presumably one of the foreground stars), and the direction of this view relative to the solar system and the Milky Way. i.e. Do planets pass through this constellation or not (i.e. zodiacal or non-zodiacal constellation), have supernovae, or novae, or gamma-ray bursts been observed in this constellation. What I'm imagining is those zoom-out images you have of the Sun and solar system seen from a distance relative to the rest of the galaxy and universe, with the view of Andromeda shown as a 3D 'light' cone reaching out into the universe. What areas does that cone pass through?

    And looking at the infobox, I see the nearest star is identified there, and also the brightest star. Some infoboxes have so much information, it can't all be communicated in the text of the article, but in this case I think some of the infobox information needs to appear in the main text as well. Material that I'd include in both infobox and main article text include the area (722 square degrees) and that it is 19th among the constellations by area (and since freeform text is less restrictive than an infobox, you can compare the size to that of the Full Moon, one of the traditional comparisons, and to the smallest and largest constellations), the brightest and nearest stars (you already mention the brightest star in both infobox and article text, but the nearest star is only in the infobox), stars with planets (the infobox says ten, which begs the question which stars are these?), the three Messier objects, the three stars within 10 parsecs (some of the infobox stuff needs sources, though). One thing that confused me, the infobox says 'Main stars 4, 18' - what does that mean? Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope I get everything in response here. I can count all of the stars in Ptolemy's figure, then count the Bayer stars, then the Flamsteed stars, and then try to find something catalogued and put a sentence at the beginning of the Stars section. Would that work? I'd really like to put this, one of the oldest constellations, in a historical context as you've suggested, and that may be the only way to frame it. I added a sentence in the lead saying that it's not a zodiacal constellation. I haven't found anything about supernovae/novae/gamma ray bursts specifically in my sources. I can dig some information about recurrent novae up from the AAVSO, but I'm not sure that's what you're looking for. This database also lists a couple of novae in Andromeda, but I'm also not sure that they're noteworthy enough to merit a mention. What do you think about that? Furthermore, I think the "cone" issue is addressed in the discussion of its position in the sky; I don't know what else to write on that. I've added some discussion of some of the infobox material to the lead, where I feel it'll be most helpful. Is that an improvement? I also added a paragraph about Ross 248 to the Stars section. As for the exoplanets, I have written about the most notable ones in the Stars section, Upsilon Andromedae and 14 Andromedae. I honestly have no idea what the "main stars" parameter means either. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay in responding here. What you describes sounds OK (Ptolemy-Bayer-Flamsteed), as this would expand on the infobox designation 'Bayer/Flamsteed stars = 65' (that confuses me as well, is it an aggregate, or was the number the same for Andromeda in both surveys?). Bayer was 1,564 stars, Flamsteed was 2554 stars. I would suggest rather than counting the stars in Ptolemy, find a source that lists them for each of Ptolemy's constellation (or attempts to). This will all stand you in good stead for the other constellations you are planning on working on. Similarly, it would be good to find out what the 'main stars' parameter is all about, as it may be wrong and/or misleading, and that needs sorting out at the featured article level. The novae stuff I'm not too bothered about, as long as some effort has been made to look for stuff like that (you could also check 'what links here' to see if any notable objects listed in Andromeda have been linked from here, or look at the list of objects in Andromeda). Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, some care needs to be taken to get the balance right between the article being a history of the concept and nature of the constellation, and a whistle-stop tour of objects contained in the constellation. With a bit more of the history, I think the balance could be improved. The most critical bit, in my view, is pinning down the year the modern definition of the constellation was defined by the IAU, and then fleshing out a bit more of the history that preceded that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rejig the second para of the lead - at the moment you mention binaries, then M31, then a binary, then some galaxies. The objects flow better according to type.
I reordered it; better now? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I rejigged again - "Several binaries..." is really vague. So I stuck in Mirach and Almach (I recall this colourful binary as a popular target for binocs or small telescopes). Was tempted to add a line about Ross 248 too but am ok either way on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you! That looks excellent. I'll leave Ross 248 for the body; I don't think it'd add anything particularly special to the lead anyways. I did switch it to American spelling for consistency though. My English family are rolling over in their graves... Keilana|Parlez ici 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
....is the 9th closest star to Earth..... - easier on the eyes as "ninth"
Fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Deep-sky objects section you have Almach linking to alpha And (mixup?)
Fixed. Oops. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
M31 is often referred to as a twin sister to the Milky Way,... - I'd drop the "sister" unless part of the source... ok, not hugely fussed either way.
Language like that is pretty common in amateur astronomy texts, and though I don't have the source in front of me, I'm fairly sure Wilkins and Dunn referred to the two as twin sisters. If you still feel it's unencyclopedic, I can remove it; it's not a big deal. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if there is a tad too much detail on M31 here....but not a big issue.
What can I say, I'm an astronomy fangirl! :) What would you suggest removing? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the History and mythology section needs a one liner about how several neighbouring constellation are part of the Perseus myth.
I stuck a sentence after the retelling of the myth so the reader's aware of who all the characters are. Is that good? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looking good on prose and comprehensiveness Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed Rey but there was one incorrectly formatted citation to Koed.
  • I fixed source 17 and checked the others for similar problems. Everything should be in order now.
  • I also fixed the dash thing. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Keilana, I don't think we've 'met'... ;-) Can you point me to a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing on one of your previous FAC noms? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, nice to meet you! [shakes hands] My previous FAC noms were Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannon and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices. Cannon got a source review from GrahamColm and the clocks got a source review from Nishkid64. I remember them going through every source and pointing out problems with verifiability and accuracy, which I'm assuming is what you're asking for. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, those go back a ways, don't they...?! We'd better have one here -- I'll list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long while for sure! Given that most of my sources are dead trees, I can provide stuff for anyone who needs to verify them. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can do, but not till Thursday. Happy to make way for anyone quicker off the mark. Tim riley (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot check

There are a few queries below, with regard to which I add this disclaimer: I am to astronomy what whales are to hang-gliding, and my queries probably come under the heading of "ask a silly question".

  • Hoskin & Dewhirst
    • 35a – fine
    • 35b - fine
  • Bakich
    • 3a – text says 0h 47m; source says 0h 46m
    • 3b – fine
    • 6a – fine
    • 6b – fine
    • 7 – fine
    • 17a – fine
    • 17b – fine
    • 18 – fine
    • 50 – the figure 3.5 is there on p. 51, but not the statement that it is one of the brightest deep-sky objects in the northern sky (but see my disclaimer, above)
    • 60 – fine
  • Ridpath
    • 26a – text says "magnitude of 2.06"; source says "2.1"
    • 26b – fine
    • 26c – fine
    • 26d – fine
    • 26e – fine
    • 26f – fine
    • 26g – source doesn't say apparent magnitude, but (see disclaimer) this may go without saying to anyone who knows anything about astronomy. I see the source here contradicts the source at ref 42, but, again perhaps that is within the usual range of precision in such matters.
    • 26h – fine
    • 26i – fine
    • 26j – fine
    • 26k - fine
  • Thompson and Thompson
    • 11a – fine
    • 11b – fine
    • 11c – fine
    • 11d – fine
    • 11e – fine
    • 11f – fine
    • 11g – fine
    • 11h – fine
    • 11i – fine
    • 11j – fine
    • 11k – fine
    • 11l – fine
    • 11m – fine
    • 11n – fine
    • 11o – fine
  • Moore
    • 14a – fine
    • 14b – fine
    • 14c – fine
    • 14d – fine
    • 14e – fine
    • 14f – fine
    • 14g – I couldn't track the "6 other Mira variables" in the source, but see disclaimer
    • 14h – fine
    • 14i – fine
    • 14j – fine
    • 14k – the source is correctly quoted as to the figures, but doesn't say that this is Andromeda's "most celebrated" open cluster
    • 14l – figures are correctly quoted, but (disclaimer again) the source doesn't say that the figures "mak[e] it a tighter cluster than NGC 752". That's probably obvious, but I just mention it.
    • 14m – fine
    • 14n – fine.

Most of the information in the above sources consists of figures, and except where mentioned in my review is correctly quoted. References to prose text are accurate but without any close paraphrasing. – Tim riley (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought. I forgot to add this while I still had the books before me, but I noticed that there were spelling differences between the various sources. For instance, Almach was (from memory) rendered Almaak by, I think, Ridpath. I wonder if these orthographical discrepancies might be mentioned in the relevant parts of the article, or would that be needless clutter? Merely a thought. And I ought to have added, and now do, that I am as hugely impressed by the article in toto as a layman has any right to be. Loud applause! Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! For 3a, I just looked it up on Google books and it says 0h46m. Not sure what's up with that. For 50, I think that explicit fact was in another source and got lost in the shuffle, but it can easily be implied from the table in Bakich which lists the Messier objects and their brightness; the Andromeda Galaxy is clearly very very bright in comparison. For 26a, I'm pretty sure that number came from Moore, but Google books doesn't have the preview and I had to return it to the library. Should I change it to 2.1? For 26g, "apparent" magnitude is implied, it's in contrast to "absolute" magnitude. When an astronomy text gives a magnitude without specifying, it's assumed to be the "apparent magnitude", the brightness as visible from the Earth. For 14g, I just counted the other major Mira variables in the source; Moore specifically stated in the introduction that he lists all the major variable stars in each constellation. For 14k, I believe that came from Thompson, but that went back to the library with Moore. Should I remove it? And for 14l, that comes from its listed classification; I just compared the two. As for the spelling issues, I considered putting them in but since they sound phonetically the same, I didn't want to clutter the article with a million different (sometimes terrible) transcriptions/corruptions of Arabic phrases.Thanks again for the excellent, thorough review! Keilana|Parlez ici 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3a - yes, the source does indeed say 0h46, but your text in the infobox says 0h47.
  • 26a - I had the source before me this morning and, yes, I think you ought to change to 2.1.
  • If you are happy with 14k I shouldn't presume to quibble.
As for your other replies, above, I'd say no change to your text is called for. Compliments and regards. Tim riley (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, typing fail, I even had it right in the coordinates. I've changed to 2.1 and fixed the infobox. Thanks again! Keilana|Parlez ici 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on ENGVAR This article has used American English from its inception, and, as written contained for several years a sentence which mentioned that the constellation was named for the goddess. In 2008 the article was changed to say the constellation was named after the goddess. While both forms exist in American English, 'for' is more common in that dialect whereas 'after' predominates enormously in British English. For me, "named after" currently reads a little awkwardly. --John (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this. Thanks for the comment! Keilana|Parlez ici 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I tightened the lead and made a couple of other minor changes. It's a lovely article and I think I now support. --John (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from John's comment, we have "neighbor" and "neighbour" and "color" and "colour" -- perhaps there are other Engvar conflicts... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Americanised one "neighbouring" and am cross with myself for missing another. The "colour" is in a quote. I didn't spot any other Anglicisms in the text, and I have fed the text through a spell-checker using American spelling and nothing untoward came up. Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, well I overlooked that "colour" was in a quote, so don't be too hard on yourself... ;-) Tks for dealing with that, Tim, and for the spotcheck. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Glad to be of use. What's the etiquette with your request at WT:FAC? Do I delete it or do you? Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Tim. I am happy for you to delete the request. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Tks for reminding me -- there's no ceremony to it, whoever gets there first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's note - Have I missed an image review? I don't foresee any problems except, possibly, the chart used as the Lead image. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, images appear to have been checked by various reviewers, if not in one hit. I double-checked myself and all appear okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) Graham Colm (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Andromeda_(constellation)/archive1&oldid=1089817916"