Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sagitta/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 November 2020 [1].

Sagitta

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small constellation with some interesting things in it. I think it is of the same quality as the other constellation articles that are now Featured. Let me know what I can fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Just a few things.

  • It might be useful to emphasise in the lead that Sagitta has no connection with Sagittarius (thus, it is not an arrow being shot by the archer, at least not by Sagittarius).
Ack - might need to find a source that I can use for that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find a source, how about a "not to be confused with" hatnote on the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't insist on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Delta, Epsilon, Zeta and Theta Sagittae are multiple stars whose components can be seen in small telescopes. " I might add "each" before either "are" or "multiple".
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having exhausted its core hydrogen and now burning it in a shell.[15]" I might add "outer" before "shell" for clarity.
"surrounding" added - "outer" might then suggest there is an "inner shell"... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the spike" Is this the arrowhead?
My guess is it is on the side of the arrow based on the star layout but I don't know. We have been renovating so all many of my books are in boxes and I don't remember this book actually specifying what hte damn spike was... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bayer's depiction of the arrow has a diamond-shaped "spike" near the centre of the shaft. The two stars δ and ζ lie on this, α, β, and ε lie on the "tail", γ on the shaft near the head, η at the base of the head, and θ on the head of the arrow. The depiction doesn't make any great effort to follow the positions of the stars, and certainly nothing like the modern line depictions. Lithopsian (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check consistency on "light-years" vs. "light years".
all hyphenated now (gets me every time...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]

NB: I am competing in the WikiCup and will claim points for this review.

  • "Right ascension: 19.8333h" is given in the infobox, but I can't see that number in the text. I assume it is the middle of the figures given, "18h 57.2m and 20h 20.5m", but I don't understand why they don't both give the same information.
these were put in in days of yore as some sort of average - put in more accurate answer with ref Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same query for the Declination.
as per preceding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quandrant: NQ4" also only appears in the infobox as far as I can tell.
removed - these quadrants were added in the early days - one almost never sees them in books or other references Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why use a different rounding value 79.9 / 80 for the Area between the article and the infobox?
good point. changed. Alot of these values were added a very long time ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:LANG, foreign-language terms, such as "Oistos", "al-sahm", "Sham" etc. should be in a {{lang}} template.
I templated the one in Greek characters - all others are in Latin script from languages not in Latin script originally (Greek/Arabic) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Arrow is located beyond the north border of Aquila, the Eagle." Because the last sentence dealt with the mythical arrow, it needs to be made clear the article is now talking about the constellation again.
Calling it Sagitta again makes this clearer I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I found it confusing in the next sentence, that starts "Amateur polymath Richard Hinckley Allen proposed.." that it switches between links to Arcadia, a place, Cygnus and Lyra, constellations, and then back to Herculea, a place, without any indication that some are places on Earth being referred to, and some are constellations.
Okay, I tried clarifying thus, how is that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and German astronomers Friedrich Wilhelm Argelander, and Eduard Heis.." Move the second comma after "Heis".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and it is now equated to HR 7705." What does this mean?
I'm not sure what point that entire sentence is trying to make. Several of the stars are multiples of one sort or another. There doesn't seem to be anything special about this one, or about it being designated HR 7705. Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..of spectral type M0III.." "..of spectral type M2 II.." "..of spectral class G1 II.." Is the first intentionally "MOIII", or should it be "MO III" to match the style of the others?
good point. should all be spaced. now done so Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "331-million year-old" There should also be a hyphen after million.
Really...err...ok, done (looks odd having so many hyphens in a row Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..of spectral type K2III.." Similar question to before.
fixed/spaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about whether to group or not group 4-digit numbers: for example, "2,329", "5,100" and "2,576" vs "4000", "3500" and "7900".
commas added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a good, interesting article. Although essentially a technical subject, the article explains things as well as can be expected. Nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SG

[edit]
  • Cas, could you relocate the first image so it doesn't sandwich with the info box?
it has been moved - annoying as only really relates to first section after lead... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this two different formats for plus or minus? that has swollen to 18.37+0.65
    −0.88     its diameter. It is 580±10 light-years distant.
It is because some plus/minus ranges have different values. To put the latter example in the same format would be needlessly complicated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is illustrated in infobox italicized? are defined by a polygon of twelve segments (illustrated in infobox).
italics as emphasis to demarcate from rest of text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check wikilinking throughout; eg, light-years is not linked on first occurrence.
Fixed that one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't start sentences with a number (there are multiple instances, sample, 1.392±0.047 times as massive as the Sun with 1.535)
I'm struggling to find these. I don't think they've been edited away recently, but the 1.392 for example isn't at the start of a sentence, and I can't find other numbers at the start of sentences. Did you mean something different to what I'm looking for? Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding several formatting oddities, resulting from the software. So I see what happened here. The plus or minus formatting is causing extra space between lines, which made me think that what looked like a new line was the start of a new paragraph. I wonder why all those odd templates can't be made to fit within the standard line height. This is also very weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check named refs- this one occurs repeatedly: Brown, A. G. A.; et al. (Gaia collaboration) (August 2018). "Gaia Data Release 2: Summary of the contents and survey properties". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 616. A1. arXiv:1804.09365. Bibcode:2018A&A...616A...1G. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051. Gaia DR2 record for this source at VizieR.
They're all different, or should be. The VizieR link is to the particular database record for each star. The cited journal paper is the same in each case. Lithopsian (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ha ... so then I suggest that you put the VizieR link first, then add "as cited at" Brown ... etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for incomplete citations; example, this has no date: "CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos". m.cnn.com. Retrieved 2020-01-09.
Fixed that one, and another Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your citation style for et al? Brown, for example, lists one author plus et al, while others have a string of authors, example, Crepp.
  • This would be better formatted using cite press release.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is listed as "Cited texts" but I can't decipher where, and it uses a different author format than the other citations: Ian Ridpath and Wil Tirion (2007). Stars and Planets Guide, Collins, London. ISBN 978-0-00-725120-9. Princeton University Press, Princeton. ISBN 978-0-691-13556-4.
An old reference - must have eventually usurped its use throughout article and forgotten to remove. Removed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is listed as "Cited texts" but it is used only once in the article; would it be easier to make a direct citation rather than use short form? Wagman, Morton (2003). Lost Stars: Lost, Missing and Troublesome Stars from the Catalogues of Johannes Bayer, Nicholas Louis de Lacaille, John Flamsteed, and Sundry Others. Blacksburg, Virginia: The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-939923-78-6.
Now inlined - I have often used multiple segments of this book, which is why it is down the bottom. Thanks for picking up I only used one segment this time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a mixed date style in citations (do you want me to run script to convert them?).
    • Kunitzsch, Paul (2002). "Albumasariana" (PDF). Annali Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. OPAR L'Orientale Open Archive. p. 4. Retrieved 30 January 2020.
    • "CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos". m.cnn.com. Retrieved 2020-01-09.
Got 'em all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP on HR 7705; check throughout? Theta was in fact three stars, and it is now equated to HR 7705
I put a bunch in. The HR 7705 segment has been removed now but found spots to put more in as per guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images are freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Praemonitus

[edit]

Support: Overall it's a good article, especially for such an insignificant constellation. Only a couple of fussy things bugged me a little:

  • The article gets a little anal retentive regarding margin of error. Unless an error range is a significant fraction (say ≥10%) of the base value, does it really add much to present it in this general context? I mean, for most readers "2.5±1.8 billion years old" is useful, but "1.08±0.04 times its mass" probably isn't.
  • The references include a mix of full author listings and short lists with 'et al' at the end.

But these really aren't enough to stop me adding my support. Nice work! Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "It was included among the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd century astronomer Ptolemy" - source?
I added this in the body with a reference, so the mention in the lead is now supported. Lithopsian (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sagitta can be seen from every location on Earth except within the Antarctic circle. " - source?
There is a cited sentence in the body about it being entirely visible from the 69th parallel south northwards (antarctic circle = 66th parallel), but I just removed the sentence as I don't recall seeing anything more accessible or specific in guidebook that I can source. Not that big a deal anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two star systems in Sagitta have Jupiter-like planets" - the text identifies one with a Jupiter-like planet, but the other identifies only a planet much larger than Jupiter - is this planet "Jupiter-like"?
Yes. It means large gas giants Jupiter-sized to much larger. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the infobox also appear to be unsourced
deprecated material removed. Some is in all constellation articles and predates my involvement, but material (like lead) replicates material sourced in body of text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing details here that I can't find sourced in the text, such as when specifically it is best visible. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky - in the days of yore, all 88 constellations had this info added, but the only book we can find words it a bit differently (now added). I could change the infobox but then that makes a disparity with all the other constellation infoboxes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1: I can't verify a publication with this exact title, although I do see a few similar - can you double-check?
This is listed here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title listed there does not match the title listed here (now FN4). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now formatted as a cite journal, fixed journal, publisher, and volume, removed accessdate. Title seemed correct? Lithopsian (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meant journal title - now correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether locations are included for books, and if so how these are formatted
locations added and aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing a New York, NY vs just New York. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lithopsian has kindly removed that one (how'd I miss that??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how author names are formatted
Aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how book titles are capitalized
title cased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: page?
Added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Fn6 and similar: publishers aren't required for web sources, is there a reason to specify self-published in this case?
No, removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9: provided wikilink goes to a rock band, which I expect is not what you're meaning to cite
weird...it's going to where it is supposed t be going now for me.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref # changed? I found a wikilink to The Constellations, currently in FN1. Removed, this is not the correct publication. Apparently not a journal at all, just an IAU web page. Fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IAU is a publisher, not a work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now uses publisher field instead of website. Lithopsian (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent format for retrieval dates
Aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, it's not - in FN2 we have 2020-10-20, but then in FN4 we have 30 January 2020, and in FN48 we have 9 Jan 2020. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of these was my recent edit. I fixed them both. Lithopsian (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
pageranges unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN31: given work title is a publisher, and publication date is missing
The website and publisher both called AAVSO, so not sure what I should do here. date added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AAVSO should be listed as publisher and work title omitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN38: don't repeat publisher as work title, and why is this spelled out and linked here when it wasn't in 31?
Good point - aligned with the other one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN49 is missing author
Added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN50 is misformatted and incomplete
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there and oppose pending citation cleanup - have to say this isn't up to your usual standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - have worked on this one very intermittently over the years, and more nice people than usual have added references but I was remiss in not thoroughly checking for formatting. On it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN48, 49: inconsistent date format
I think Lithopsian got these Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN49: just use |publisher=CNN and get rid of work title
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed page title. Lithopsian (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, can I assume that your comments have all been satisfactorily addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two pending issues: AAVSO is still being used in a work title parameter rather than publisher. The other is the uncited infobox issue, which I'm not super happy with, but I'm not going to oppose over that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I've changed two citations so AAVSO is the publisher and added some refs in the infobox. Lithopsian (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

This has been well picked over my now, and the comments below are more suggestions than must-dos, so your call

  • Although Sagitta is an ancient constellation — well, the stars are definitely ancient, but perhaps make it clearer that is the naming that dates to antiquity
The sentence has been edited. I think it is clearer now just what is old. Lithopsian (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54 times greater. —than?
added "than it" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6th labor — I don't know if you intended the US spelling, but even if you did I'd prefer sixth
actually I am struggling to find a British/US word in the article to determine which spelling we followed in the article...but I will presume British..and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • core hydrogen —personally, I'd invert the order of these two words
It means the hydrogen in its core so current order reflects that better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ionised buckminsterfullerene —I know it's linked, but maybe insert carbon isotope or similar helper?
added "molecules" (which is what they are) - writing "complex carbon molecules known as buckminsterfullerenes" might be a tad wordy? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
< yes, although it can technically be considered as an isotope, your wording is better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks pretty good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas, I wonder if you have overlooked my first point above, which so far has no response? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak:, We tried this - It is tricky Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 18 November 2020 (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/Sagitta/archive1&oldid=1138470689"