Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mensa (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) 18:34, 13 November 2018 [1].

Mensa (constellation)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hopefully on a par with the 30 Featured Articles on constellations to date. Short and sweet, any issues should be quickly fixed as I believe it is within striking distance of FA-hood. NB: It got a good going-over at GAN by AhmadLX. His one outstanding issue is (hopefully) addressed by this change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

Support on 1a. Lead and infobox:

  • First para was way overlinked. I've zapped them and lightly edited the para.
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence: "Its name is Latin for table, though it originally depicted Table Mountain and was known as Mons Mensae." What is "it"? Whatever "it" is, it's depicting and was known as something. Has the constellation's appearance changed so suddenly?
my quandary is how to address this without sounding repetitive - such as if I say "Mensa's name.." or "The constellation's name...". Is it obvious what I am referring to if I say "Its name" or "The name"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew what the intended meaning was, I'd suggest a fix. Table Mountain as in ... South Africa? "it originally depicted", I presume, should be "it was originally likened to". Is that correct? Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that is the idea. verb substituted accordingly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: is that a hyphen in the declination range?? Where there's an adjacent minus sign, MOSNUM says to write "to". "Best visible" -> "Visibility best". "the month of January"—kill the first three words.
these involve the template - will try to get a rough consensus for thes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stars with planets: 2". Just checking: we know for a fact that none of the other star systems has exoplanets, do we? That's what the infobox seems to imply. If not, it's misleading.
the infoboxes cover all the constellations. a bigger issue than here. Should raise it on the wikiproject page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere in the lead or infobox are we told how far away it is. I guess a constellation is just a pattern in the sky, not a physically cohesive entity. But when you write "part of the Large Magellanic Cloud lies within the constellation's borders", many punters will think the LMC (which is pretty close to the Milky Way) is physically part of the entity. But it's just in the way, visually, right?
correct - it is an artificial construct to map the sky, with close and far objects in it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope readers get it. Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
most readers with any knowledge of the area will understand Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still on the lead:

  • "Mensa is one of the faintest constellations in the night sky and contains no apparently bright stars. Its brightest star, Alpha Mensae is barely visible in suburban skies. Two of its star systems have been found to have exoplanets, and part of the Large Magellanic Cloud lies within the constellation's borders. Several star clusters and a quasar lie in the area covered by the constellation." What's the difference between and apparently bright star and a bright star? -->

    "Mensa is one of the faintest constellations in the night sky and contains no bright stars (the brightest, Alpha Mensae, is barely visible in suburban skies). At least two of its star systems have exoplanets, and part of the Large Magellanic Cloud, several star clusters, and a quasar lie in the area covered by the constellation."

    Have I wrongly assumed that the LMC has no star clusters? Tony (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

good points both and tweaked. The LMC does, but they are much fainter than the ones in our own galaxy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
I am flummoxed on this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to help out here, seems like the source may be constellation guide originally. Still trying to find it on HST site if I can. Kees08 (Talk) 22:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you type in 'NGC1987' (no quotes, no spaces). This brings up a list you can expand. There is one taken on October 7, 2003, with the Spectral_Elt of 'F814W/F555W/F435W'. If you click on 'Display' it looks like the original Commons image. It also has Prop ID 10595. You should be able to expand the description by saying was detector was used. Also make sure it is not copyrighted by ESA since it was taken before 2008. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Let me know when you get this settled. I think I found all the information, just need it added to the image. Kees08 (Talk) 01:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, @Kees08: which page are you searching and getting this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page Kees08 (Talk) 04:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added date - 18th October 2006 ("10595" series/study) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple more edits to it, and I think it is good to go now. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 18:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Ridpath, Ian; Tirion, Wil (2017), Stars and Planets Guide is not used as a reference by the article.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some books in the citations section and others (fn 9, 12 and 37) not?
I only put books there if I am referencing different bits to different pages. If only a single page or page range then it sits in the upper section. I have been doing it this way for over ten years (unless someone else has done different) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • author-link John Herschell (and shouldn't he be Sir John in the text?)
done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot check: fn 3, 10, 29, 38: ok
  • fn 17: an orange giant of spectral type K2III. I can't find that in the reference.
okay, many articles have data on many many stars and are tabulated online. This article is here, from where one clicks on online data to get here. From here one enters the stars HIP designation (in Gamma Mensae's case it is 25918) to get the information. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 21: Zeta Mensae is an ageing white giant of spectral type A5 III around 414 ± 9 light-years from Earth. I can't find that in the reference.
same method as preceding but using the star's Henry Draper (HD) number... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 24: Source says 37.7 ± 0.9 parsecs. I make that 123 ± 3 LY. (Consider using the {{convert}} template?)
aah, the 2011 paper uses a 1997 paper for the distance. This was updated in the 2007 paper by van Leeuwen. Sourcing sorted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcery and imagery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should Tinney (2011) have the volume and issue number?
oops, filled out ref now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the two different citation templates in the Citations section are producing different outputs?
ah, changed to align with other sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's my only question on sourcing. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. I have a couple of questions about images when you get a chance. Kees08 (Talk) 03:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jolielegal

[edit]
  • It may be useful to update the distances to the new Gaia Data Release 2[3], which should be more precise than the Hipparcos measurements.
This is fantastic! I haven't used it as I haven't edited constellation articles much in a while. How do I find the identifier to get the right star? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just enter the name of the star in the "Simple Target" box at the top of the page. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually SIMBAD is all GAIA'ed now. all van leeuwen refs replaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alpha Mensae: clarify that the disk properties (radius and temperature) are just a model based on the assumption that the dust emits as a single-temperature blackbody. Also, the dust detection has been contested[4].
added subsequent study. pondering how to word assumption Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest just to write something like estimated or modeled radius/temperature, to make clear that these values are just approximations. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"estimated" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beta Mensae/Gamma Mensae: citing the parameters of the stars with such precision ("1.04 times as massive") gives the wrong impression that these values are known to such precision.
The paper for Gamma's mass and age does not give a margin of error. I used the word "around" to signify it's not exact... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pi Mensae: the article needs to mention the recently discovered transiting planet around this star, the first discovery by the TESS spacecraft [5]
I am torn on this one...I really want to add but is it ok if it is just in arxiv pre-print (i.e. not published yet)? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a rule or recomendation about arxiv pre-prints. But the source is clearly reliable, and in my opinion it should be included. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's certainly got some coverage so Pi Mensae c added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • HD 38283: "a gas giant around a third as massive as Jupiter" clarify that this is just a minimum mass
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the criterium for including stars in this list? A quick search in List of stars in Mensa and Template:Stars of Mensa reveals other stars that might be notable to be included here: Tu Mensae[6], TY Mensae[7], UX Mensae[8], YY Mensae[9], AH Mensae[10], HD 39194[11] (has 3 planets, but is not mentioned at all). If AO Mensae is notable for inclusion, then some of these stars certainly are too.
I have used something like this for constellations before. But obviously misses stars with just an HD number. SOme stars are easier to write about than others. The fact that we do have a list gives me pause for including too many. Will scour these ones and include or give reasons for not doing so Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that since this is a small constellation and the article is very short there is plenty of room to add more stars in the list. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have added all apart from TU Mensae, as I am having trouble finding recent data so don't know whether problems from 1995 still exist...aaand I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a more recent study of TU Mensae: [12]. This object seems to be extra notable for its long orbital period. "This dwarf nova is the longest period SU UMa system." (Although it is no longer the longest, it remains notable [13]. "It had long been known that SU UMa-type dwarf novae are restricted to objects below the famous CV period gap. The only well-established exception was, and has long been, one of the earliest known SU UMa-type dwarf novae, TU Men.") Jolielegal (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok TU Mensae added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WISE 0535−7500:
    • "either sub-brown dwarfs or free planets", aren't these the same thing? In fact the page free planet is a redirect to sub-brown dwarf.
yes, not sure how that happened. trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "of spectral class ≥Y1" maybe clarify to cooler than Y1?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe the article should clarify that the binarity of this object is not confirmed with resolved images, but just estimated from photometry (the object is overluminous for its color). The mass is also just an estimative assuming both components have the same mass.
oops, missed this. done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes/linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PKS 0637-752: the source says "we see it as it was 6 billion years ago", but this does not mean it is located at a distance of 6 billion light-years (see Comoving and proper distances). "The resulting images revealed a gas jet approximately 326,000 light-years long." this was converted from 100 kpc, so the precision is misleading. Jolielegal (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
changed to 330,000 light years...or would you like 300,000? I just removed the light-year bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jolielegal, anything you'd like to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I am still going through the last couple of stars to add. I will alert folks when done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Update? --Laser brain (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme a few hours. Just realised there were a couple of little things.......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @Laser brain and Jolielegal: unless I have overlooked something I have answered all of Jolielegal's points, but not added one star (TU Mensae) as there are some conflicting results and it's fairly obscure. I am struggling to make that star sound interesting. Over to y'all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Support. All my points have been addressed. This article is very good. Please keep writing astronomy articles, and I hope to see all constellations featured one day! Jolielegal (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus

[edit]

Support: my concerns were addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few concerns:

  • The article uses the following terminology without explanation: "dwarf", "gas giant", "eclipsing binary", "main sequence", "binary system", "orbital period", "sunspot", "light-year", "arcsecond", and "substellar". In some cases a clarification is appropriate; in others a wikilink.
linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article switches from "AU" to "astronomical unit". I'd use the full term on the first instance with AU in parentheses.
AU unabbreviated at first mention Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...labelling them Alpha through to Lambda Mensae...": not every reader is going to be familiar with the Greek alphabet, so it should clarify the source.
You mean like this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...would have been considerably brighter back then": the Jim Kaler article specifies that it was a 2nd magnitude star.
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references seem to be in good shape. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alpha Mensae is a solar-type star (class G7V) 33.26 ± 0.05 light-years from Earth.[11] However, data from Herschel Space Observatory failed to confirm this excess, leaving the finding in doubt.— What excess? This seems to refer to something not yet mentioned
oops - pasted that in wrong spot. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It came to within 11 light-years from Earth around 250,000 years ago and would have been considerably brighter back then.—I don't think it's exactly OR to put "about nine times brighter", per inverse square law
another source says the magnitude, which I have added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has swollen to around 4.99 times the solar radius—either It has swollen to 4.99 times the solar radius or It has swollen to around 5 times the solar radius
these are tricky as they are all approximate, but I take your point. changing to latter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 23 October 2018 (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/Mensa_(constellation)/archive1&oldid=868716649"