Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Binary star

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Binary star

[edit]

When Srikeit approved the Good article status of Binary star, he remarked that it was almost ready for a FA nomination. I therefore tried to overcome the last difficulties in other to achieve that, and I think it's quite ready now. Nick Mks 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would gladly support this article but the following is missing:
    • The reference shoud go right after the final punctuation mark.[1] <- like this
    • The article could use more pics, and a lot of them are PD so that should not be a problem
    • The classification part is a bit short and could be expanded with at least some wording and pics
    • Examples should IMHO be more detailed. How about Epsilon Aurigae, which is one of the most fascinating doubles? What about 61 Cygni? What about Sirius and Procyon with their white dwarf companions? What about novae and supernovae resulting from doubles orbiting around a neutron star or a black hole? All those fascinating things should at least be mentioned.
That's all I can think of at the moment... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Comment second all that Grafikm has said so far, in addition: I would drop the use of the word 'interesting' in the lead and find a suitable alternative. Also, I'm not sure I'm keen on the current format of 'Binary stars in popular culture'; maybe there is a better way of doing this than a series of single-sentence paragraphs. --BillC 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff, now that so many of people's comments have been taken on board. BillC 07:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have tried to take care of most of the above remarks (I however have found no solution for the 'popular culture' section). Thanks for the input! Nick Mks 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. As soon as the popular culture section is dealt with, I'll lend my full support. Good luck, RyanGerbil10 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: does anybody have any suggestions on how to rearrange that section? I really don't know what to do but to create a list as in comparable articles. Nick Mks 20:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I revamped the "popular culture" section, renaming it to "Binary stars in science fiction" (which is really what it was about, except for a blurb which belonged in a disambig notice). Hopefully it reads a little better now. I would also like to know if the italicized passage under "Terminology" — "a real double star; the union of two stars that are formed together in one system by the laws of attraction" — is a direct quotation from somewhere. If it is, it should be enclosed in the proper marks and attributed. Anville 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Points have been addressed so support now.Oppose - several problems.
    • Fundamental things are missing - nothing about how binary systems form, nothing about novae and supernovae in binary systems, and only an extremely brief mention of eclipsing binaries.
    • Some things are hinted at and then not explained, such as the distribution of periods of binary stars having a log normal distribution. That sentence starts with 'Remarkably...' but doesn't offer any justification for the use of the word, and is also unsourced.
    • Quality of sources is also a concern - I don't see any scientific papers used at all.
    • I think writing quality needs work - examples of problems include the majority of stars is comprised, Odds are though, that a double star is probably a foreground/background star; also avoid lists where prose can be used, such as in the whole 'examples' section.
    • Inaccuracies that concern me include without [them] it would be impossible to compute the mass of any random star - even if no binary stars existed, solar physics would provide a basis for determining the physics of stars. And as you note later on, it's only eclipsing binaries that permit a direct determination of the mass, avoiding the sin i term. Worldtraveller 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's much improved - very well done. I have some more concerns though:
    • Care should be taken not to confuse binary stars with optical double stars - this seems a very preachy sort of wording, and probably not something that needs to be in the intro. You should just note that optical doubles are something different without instructing the reader to take care not to confuse them.
    • Binary stars can either be optically distinguishable (visual binaries) or only by indirect techniques such as spectroscopy - poor grammar here.
    • Binary stars are also instructive as it is possible for the companions to exchange mass - this sounds odd to me. Suggest 'The components of binary star systems can exchange mass' as simpler and clearer.
    • The most famous examples - opens cans of worms. Best to avoid this kind of claim.
    • No real need for the Introduction sub-heading - I'd get rid of it and make 'terminology' the first sub-heading.
    • When they can be resolved (distinguished) with a powerful enough telescope (with the aid of interferometric methods) they are known as visual binaries - this implies that it's only when interferometry is used that they are called visual binaries, which is not the case.
    • In other cases, the only indication of binarity is the Doppler shift of the emitted light. These systems.. - 'Systems in which this is the case' would be a more accurate way to phrase the second sentence. I am not convinced that sentence really explains what's happening either: relatively close pairs of stars such that the spectral lines in the light from each one shifts is misleading in that it implies that it's the closeness that makes the spectral lines move. Doppler shifts can be observed in visual binaries too - it's the inability to resolve the components that makes a binary spectroscopic.
    • Astrometric binaries, for example, - 'for example' seems redundant and I don't see why 'astrometric binaries' is italicised.
    • an object that does not emit visible light, or in fact any electromagnetic radiation - sounds very verbose. You could just say 'an object that does not emit any electromagnetic radiation.
    • In some instances, one can make a strong case - how about 'In some instances, there is strong evidence'? At the moment it sounds a bit too sciency.
    • the mass of the unseen companion is about nine times that of our sun - probably best to insert a cautionary 'believed to be' in there.
    • At present, binary stars are classified... - makes it sound like this might change, which is unlikely.
    • Any star can belong to several of these classes - insert 'binary' after any.
    • The brighter star of a visual binary is considered the primary star - not really 'considered' the primary - it is the primary!
    • with reference to the primary on a plane perpendicular to the line of sight of the observer - suggest replacing 'reference' with 'respect' and everything from 'a plane...' onwards with 'the plane of the sky'.
    • Determining the orbit of a spectroscopic binary is done - 'is done' sounds odd. Suggest rewording this in the passive.
    • Consider whether the equation in 'astrometric binaries' is really necessary. Stephen Hawking suggested that in a piece of popular science writing, each equation halves the number of people who will read the whole article.
    • Various facto. Space telescopes - something's gone awry here.
    • Another three-category classification - previous system described wasn't three-category.
    • I think you need to explain the term 'Roche lobe' on its first use.
    • the stars eventually coalesce - is this really so? Could do with a reference here.
    • unless something unusual happens - 'unusual' should be defined here.
    • Some binary stars might be created through gravitational capture between two single stars - I believe this is vanishingly unlikely, even in very dense stellar regions. I'd phrase it in a different way to make this clear.
    • It has since been shown - since what? I don't think the subsequent few sentences are terribly clear. Also a <ref> tag is missing.
    • An extensive simulation for the Algol system is available at North Carolina State University - move this info to external links.
    • Runaway stars can also originate in supernova explosions. I think there's a ref in the runaway stars article that suggests about half are disrupted binaries and half are 'kicked' by supernovae.
    • A more recent supernova event having dramatic consequences on a binary is that in the LS 5039 system - this needs more explanation. What is the significance of this system?
    • During the past 200 years a large amount of research has been carried out on binary stars leading to some general conclusions - this is pretty redundant.
    • the mass can only be inferred in a statistical sense. - you could do with explaining what's meant by 'statistical' sense here.
    • Perhaps the Dogon legends surrounding Sirius B are worth mentioning?
    • Other interesting double stars that could be mentioned are SS Lacertae (eclipsing binary which stopped eclipsing) and V907 Sco (eclipsing binary which stopped, then started, then stopped again).
    • Algol is the most famous eclipsing ternary - does the third component also eclipse? If not, it's probably more accurate to describe it as an eclipsing binary still.
    • Everything in the see also section is already linked, so that section is redundant.
    • I hope you don't mind me giving this such a detailed review. I have been extremely thorough because a) I'm an astronomer and therefore very fussy about astronomy articles and b) this could well end up being the 1000th featured article so it's worth paying special attention to. Well done again for all the work you've done on it so far. Worldtraveller 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't mind at all, in contrary. I'm a (future) astrophysisist myself, so I know how important accuracy is. I've carried out the minor changes right away, those needing extra content are for tomorrow. Nick Mks 20:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to attend to the remaining problems, though in some cases I opted to remove some content in stead of adding, as I felt that some parts (not written by myself) hinted at something which is too complicated to explain here in full. Nick Mks 08:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've done an excellent job here. If it was me writing I probably would miss out the equation, but that's nothing to oppose over so I support. Hope to see lots more astronomical articles from you! Worldtraveller 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I considered dropping the equation, because I personally feel the same about it as Hawking, but my theoretical friends tell me the opposite. And it's not too bad, there are no differentials or integrals in it. Nick Mks 13:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite: You need to tighten and provide more certainty on how many stars are in binary systems. You have:

"Recent research suggests that the majority of stars is part of a binary (or multiple) star system" in the lead. [This research], from this year, says no. "It is believed that at least a quarter, and probably more than half, of all stars are at least binary systems" contradicts the previous (a quarter is not a majority) and is syntactically confusing ("all stars are at least binary systems"?) I realize you can read a lot of vague often contradictory numbers on this (much like the % of Red dwarfs) but for this to be FA, this point should be nailed down as tightly as possible. Other things: Do you think you could work in a sentence or two about binaries and habitability/habitable zones? See here.

  • I deliberately kept the sections about the different kinds of binaries short, because otherwise the seperate articles become useless. Are you proposing we should merge them?
  • I admit that there are little to none references to scientific papers. However, I do think that the references provided are reliable enough, and I'm not sure how an article for a general audience could use specialised references. What kind of papers do you have in mind?
Once again, thaks everybody for the input. Nick Mks 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the information in the subarticles can be easily included in the main article without it being too long, then merging could be the way to go. As for references, I think it's preferable to use scientific papers. Press releases and general public websites already interpret and simplify somewhat, and taking that as the basis for an article can introduce errors. To read astronomical papers, use the Astrophysics Data System: [1]. Worldtraveller 18:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've proposed a merge of seven short articles on the different classifications. Let's see what the others think. As for the references, I'll try to pick something up from ADS without getting too specialised. Nick Mks 19:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think I have incorporated all ideas now. I did carry out the merge, provided references for those sections, and also linked to some (general) scientific papers for the most advanced subjects. Nick Mks 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: "Binary star systems are very important in astrophysics: most of the properties of any star are deduced from observations of binary star systems." What exactly does this mean? Marskell 16:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the properties" is much too broad. It implies that for non-binaries, we can't deduce information. Marskell 07:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will support this now. Good work taking care of things Nick. Marskell 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Definitely an FA class article. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now as issues were addressed. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was going to quibble about a few little bits, but I just fixed those myself. As a complete know-nothing when it comes to astronomy, even I found it interesting. Proto||type 09:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support On such a broad and heavily researched topic, this article is not and could not hope to be the definitive reference work. However, from my non-specialist perspective, it is well-written and interesting, and deservinf of FA recognition. UltimaThule 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Overall, this is an excellent article. I liked how the difference between optical, visual, and spectroscopic binaries was explained as this is often confusing for those new to astronomy. The only thing I would suggest is a few changes to the Runaways and novae section. I noticed that there is no internal link to nova (although I could just be missing it) even though the process is described. There is also no mention of the Chandrasekhar Limit. Otherwise, the references are great and this article is definitely worthy of featured status, Great work! -Nebular110 17:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were shockingly right about the nova link. That one must have been lost in the process. I'm not sure though where you want to refer to the Chandrasekhar limit, I don't really see where that is useful. Nick Mks 18:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would go in the third paragraph of the Runaways and novae section. The white-dwarf must accrete enough mass from it's companion to pass the Chandrasekhar Limit before the star becomes unstable and the supernova (type I) that destroys the entire star occurs. It's not necessary to include it, I just thought that it might be a useful bit of information. -Nebular110 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Binary_star&oldid=1138456031"