Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crater (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2019 [1].

Crater (constellation)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article got a good going-over at GAN. There are 30 constellation articles that are Featured, hence provide a good template, and I think this is within striking distance of FA-hood, so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 4.1, 141 in the following doesn't look cool: "orange-hued star of magnitude 4.1, 141 ± 2 light-years from the Sun." Shouldn't this be "orange-hued star of magnitude 4.1, and is/some/ 141 ± 2 light-years from the Sun."?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added the source that SIMBAD uses.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Not to contradict the above editor, but I have quite a few problems with references and reference formatting.

Dude my support is on verifiability, not on formatting. AhmadLX (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book-form sources need ISBNs when appropriate. Ideally, they should be presented as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Many online ISBN converters will let you correct ISBN-10s or unhyphenated ISBN-13s.
isbns fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication locations for book-format sources are optional, but they are all or nothing. Many of yours have them, but not all.
locations added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article titles may be either in sentence case or title case, but you need to choose one and be consistent.
lower cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chinese-language AEEA reference is pretty much just a raw external link. It is not formatted correctly and lacks, well, most essential bibliographic information.
extra info added and formatted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Ridpath a reliable source?
This is science writer Ian Ridpath - he has written popular astronomy guides and won awards etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on this one... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk)
  • Unlike books, periodicals generally don't require a publisher unless that information would serve to prevent confusion. For stuff like Sky & Telescope, its inclusion is actively discouraged.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should be consistent about whether you shorten long lists of authors to et al. or list them in full.
all listed in full apart from GAIA one(s) as not sure about formatting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Kunitzsch and Smart 2006, it should be Sky Publishing, not Sky Pub.
unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gaia Data Release 2" has two identical entries in the reference list.
Nope, I'm wrong. Three At least four! Okay, lots more than that. You need to use SOME method to condense these. I don't know if there are any other sources with this problem. It makes evaluating the reference section far more challenging than it should be.
I'm not sure the best way to have this - is the one reference with links to different data Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think of myself as science-literate, but this gets pretty deep into the weeds of astronomy sourcing for me to be comfortable with making definitive statements. So please let me know if I'm understanding things correctly! The only difference between the various citations appears to be the VizieR link. This presents, to me, two possibilities. 1) Is the information being cited actually available (in the plain, anyway) in the base source—the Astronomy & Astrophysics publication? If so, then the VizieR links can perhaps be omitted to make the sourcing easier to manage (if they're very important, perhaps introduce why in footnote?). 2) If you're relying directly on the VizieR entries, then the citations should be restructured to indicate that's what you're citing. Or, perhaps, I've gotten the entire situation wrong? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The anser is "sort of". Many astronomy articles have results or data covering a large number of objects (sometimes in the thousands). The article listed here, will not contain a table listing all the results. What you have to do is find the page that lists the data and enter the identifier, which will give you this. The table that supplies this data is not viewable in the article itself, only the online search tool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sometimes give volume and issue for The Astronomical Journal, and sometimes only volume. Be consistent (and volume and issue is preferable).
issues added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seligman is not properly formatted (URLs are not site names). Also, why is this a reliable source?
The profile suggests he knows what he's talking about :). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...but not agreed on this one. Don't get me wrong, I'm certain that he does, in fact, know what he's talking about. But our self-published source use guideline requires the self-published author be "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published". He holds a Master of Arts degree in astronomy and his career has principally consisted of teaching at a community college. Regardless of the merits of his web resource, I'm struggling to see how its use is compliant with WP:SPS. He is not an "established expert" in astronomy (or any narrower field thereof). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This I can deal with - will do so tomorrow. Busy weekend and I need to sleep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, galaxies can be tricky to find info on. Had to remove some info. Ok over to you @Squeamish Ossifrage: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, this should not be considered an exhaustive analysis of the sources used or reference formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • ’’ 2nd-century ‘’ — Is this MoS? I’d write second-century
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ John H. Rogers’’ —who he? Perhaps nationality and job so we know why he matters?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ Alpha through Lambda’’ —Although capped in star names, should be lc here
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ the white dwarf is unable to be seen’’ —’’cannot be seen’’ is tidier
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ periodically ignites and erupts’’—perhaps clarify this isn’t combustion?
not sure how without going into a lot of extra detail... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]

First comments, did not read everything just yet:

  • He proposed that Corvus and Crater (along with the water snake Hydra) were death symbols – unclear to me: It was previously mentioned that they possibly were not separate constellations in Mesopotamia, combined into the Babylonian Raven? When was the constellation first seen as distinct?
Ok, it is discussed on pages 25 and 26 of this paper, with another mention on a table on page 19. I have tried to convey the source as accurately as possible without interpretation. It talks about the cup, raven and water snake being a "group" mostly but then isn't clear from the table whether the stars of Crater are just incorporated into the raven. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to our Babylonian star catalogues it is Sumerian not Akkadian...trying to clarify in the source if possible... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC) not explicitly mentioned in source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two constellations – "these two" means Crater and Corvus? But why not Hydra?
Oops, that was Corvus and Hydra only (I buffed Corvus before). Imported by mistake and now removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three brightest stars—Delta, Alpha and Gamma Crateris—from a triangle – Is it supposed to be "form"? But I wonder if it makes sense to mention that three stars are forming a triangle: they always form one, except for when they are on a single line?
yes it should be "form" - yes true, three stars should always form a triangle. I guess it means they are distinctive three stars near Nu Hydrae. (i.e. not four or two or another number of stars, and the triangle is not flattened) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no source that says that, and the books often shy away from less distinctive shapes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • traditionally called Alkes "the cup" – what language is this, may be worth adding?
Arabic - added as footnote so as not to disrupt flow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While reading through the list of stars I was repeatedly wondering where the discussed stars are located within the constellation (some stars have this info, others do not). Unfortunately the map does not show all of them.
Early in wikipedia, all the IAU maps were imported to use. They (and about 99% of maps) generally only incorporate the brighter stars. I am not sure why this is, It'd certainly make the map "busy". Maybe there is a belief that hardcore people really wanting to know where a star is will just use the coordinates....not sure. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @Jens Lallensack: do you have further queries? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why this book isn't used? It has much more detail on the mythology part. For example, it explains why the water snake would be an excuse (something that let me wonder while reading this article). Also, it states that after being casted on the sky, the crow is prohibited to drink from the cup; wouldn't this also be an important fact to add? The book even contains a brief description on the shape of the constellation (see comment above). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I have never come across that book in google book searches! Yes it is very useful! Thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any thoughts on the additions I suggested (why is the snake an excluse; crow is prohibited to drink from the cup)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to add those tidbits. Now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support It mostly looked good, although I had to edit in a couple of places. There's just one minor nit:

  • "The largest star in the constellation, Epsilon Crateris...": Perhaps the largest naked eye star in the constellation? Otherwise I don't know how this claim can ever hold up.
Good point - tweaked (am sure that is what the source implied anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Colin M

[edit]

Mostly prose-related.

tweaked. I have a vague memory of that being argued the other way in the past. But I will go with the target article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no star brighter than third magnitude. This is a weird way to start a paragraph. Presumably you mean in the constellation? It kind of comes off as an absolute statement.
tweaked. trying to be a tad too brief. and failing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few copy editing issues in Phylarchus paragraph...
    • Phylarchus wrote of a different origin for Crater: the city of Eleusa near Troy was beset by plague. The colon kind of gives the impression that what follows (up to the end of the sentence) will be the origin. I would structure the paragraph more like Phylarchus wrote of a different origin for Crater. He told how the city of Eleusa near Troy was beset by plague. Its ruler, Demiphon...
tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'its' not capitalized at start of sentence
whoops! tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems appropriate to wikilink at least 'Eleusa' or 'Troy' (and possibly character names if they're significant enough to have articles?)
I looked for something to link Eleusa but couldn't find conclusive one. linked Troy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • its ruler Demiphon consulted an oracle who decreed that a maiden would be sacrificed each year, which he subsequently determined by lottery. I find this wording just a little awkward. 'which' is clearly supposed to refer to 'the choice of maiden', but it doesn't quite follow grammatically. Maybe break up the sentence again? Its ruler Demiphon consulted an oracle who decreed that a maiden would be sacrificed each year. Demiphon declared that he would choose a maiden by lottery, but did not include his own daughter.
duly tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later, Mastusius killed Demiphon's daughters... Paragraph previously referred to daughter singular.
that was a mistake. tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a 'lunar mansion'? Can that be wikilinked? Or it might be simpler to trim that detail (it seems peripheral to the topic at hand - if the reader wants to learn more about the Vermillion Bird of the South, they can click that article link)
linked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, 'Vermillion Bird of the South' isn't fully capitalized in the corresponding article. Are you sure it's appropriate to capitalize here?
article header is capped. first sentence isn't. other mentions are. so changed the offending first sentence on other article. It is a proper title so should be capped. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to have this 'In other cultures' subsection, shouldn't the content about the Babylonian Raven also go there?
this one is a bit less obvious but usually the Babylonian material segues into classical material seamlessly and it makes more sense to keep in one section, leaving In other cultures for non-indo-european myths. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the 'Stars' and 'Deep-sky objects' sections could do a better job of providing context to the reader and following the spirit of summary style. The 'Stars' section starts by giving some good context about the first few stars mentioned and why they're noteworthy in the context of the constellation (e.g. they're especially bright, or they're positioned at some extremity). But starting around R Crateris, the text gets fully entrenched in the pattern of just listing stars (and their statistics) one after the other without giving any obvious indication of why we should care. I would try to lead with that indication of noteworthiness. e.g. Seven star systems in Crater have been found to host planets, including BD−10 3166, WASP-34, and HD 96167 which each host planets with minimum mass approximately half of Jupiter's. In 2012, it was discovered that the sun-like planet HD 98649 has a long-period planet companion, at least.... I'm far from a subject-matter expert on this, but I feel like you could trim some of the specific statistics (unless they're important and contextualized in prose) from these sections. Readers can always look up stats at List of stars in Crater or at the corresponding article for the particular celestial object, right?
this is tricky. There are a bunch of variable stars from R crateris onwards. I wanted to find a source that explained that variable stars were of interest to observers (I found one ages ago but forgot where I got it and where I used it) Stars with debris disks and planets are self-explanatory in their interest. Will have another look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you thought about having a 'History' section? You mention in the intro that the constellation was listed by Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC. There are some more facts about the historical development of the constellation sprinkled in the article (e.g. that its official boundaries were set in 1930 by so-and-so, that Flamsteed at some point conceived of it as a combined constellation with Hydra, and gave them some designation). I wonder if there's more to be said about its status over time (and whether it would be worthwhile saying it in one centralized section). Just an idea.
my take on it is that would be a bit clunky and essentially divide it pretty much the way it is now. Even though the 1930 material is nearly a century old, it is still current so calling it historical would be misrepresenting it really. Also the ancient material as a body I thought is more exacting than a histoy label. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-Colin M (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

Looks like we still need an image licensing check and, given Squeamish Ossifrage's caveat above, another set of eyes on source reliability and formatting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take that The Patrick Moore Practical Astronomy Series, Sky Publishing and (especially) Phanes Press are reliable sources? Same for Ian Ridpath, normally when we use self published sources in FAs we want well recognized experts.
Patrick Moore has authored many books and generally well-regarded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other sources seem fine for me and so is the general formatting of the references, but I did not check that (formatting) aspect so deeply.
  • File:Crater IAU.svg: Is the current license correct? The copyright page gives CC-BY 4.0.
updated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
not so sure. It was designed as a map to teach astronomy rather than art for its own sake - depends on how narrow or wide the definition is I suspect... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon thinking, commons:Template:PD-scan may be more appropriate ... but a lot depends on how much work Adam Cuerden did to the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well he cleaned it up. Dunno how someone quantifies that....added anyway as the basic look is the same... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I live in Britain, my work definitely qualifies me for copyright, but I'm generally happy to release (and have here) This is from the Library of Congress ( US Federal government - no copyright), so only my work has copyright. PD-Art or PD-Scan definitely are not appropriate, as the LoC, as a US Federal government branch, cannot gain a copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 11:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CraterCC.jpg: Can we be certain that the Wikimedia uploader and the source website operator are the same person?
the edits of the uploader suggest so. I don't feel strongly about the image and would miss its removal of reviewers felt the evidence was insufficient. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to AGF on this then. I presume you could email them through their website to get confirmation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ALT text anywhere that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the image review. Can you ping me when you consider these items resolved? --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain:I've pinged Adam Cuerden, as I am not 100% certain whether they are claiming any credit for the restoration work. Depending on how extensive the changes were they may create a copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain:Based on Adam Cuerden's comments it seems like the last aspects of copyright are resolved here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 14 April 2019 (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/Crater_(constellation)/archive1&oldid=892503396"