Talk:Leo Minor/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this later today. Please note that I am not an expert in astronomy, so I will tend to emphasise readibility from a layman's POV. An early comment, the Matheson, Levy, and Gizis FNs are all broken, while Kaler, Jim. "21 Leonis Minoris" is not used. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lay reviews are important to get accessibility right. Will work on the footnotes..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all refs fixed now. A bit sloppy and rushed of me.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Within definition
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments[edit]

1

Richard A. Proctor gave the constellation the name Leaena "the Lioness". - Roughly when? Any reason this name didn't stick?

date added. He wanted to shorten the names of the constellations to make their names less cumbersome on maps. They weren't taken up by anyone else, I just need to find a source saying that (though it is obvious...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three stars brighter than magnitude 4.5, - In the sky, in the constellation,... ?

added "in the constellation" Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Minor does not have an alpha star because Francis Baily erred and designated its brightest star Beta. - When? What is an "alpha star" (link at least). Perhaps if Leo Minor was charted by Baily this could go in

Have added Baily's bit on cataloguing these constellations of Hevelius to the History section after Hevelius - mused on placing the sentence in the stars section instead - bit undecided about which is better Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and designated its brightest star Beta. - Isn't 46 Leonis Minoris the brightest? There's no "Beta" there.

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

these two stars as of this magnitude. - Which two?

clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two each other every 38.62 years. - Missing a verb (orbit, I think)

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 Leonis Minoris is a rapidly rotating white star around 98 light years away and around 10 times as luminous as our sun. It is spinning on its axis in less than 12 hours and would be slightly flattened in shape. - Shouldn't start a sentence with a number. Also, why "would be"? Is it or isn't it? Or is it likely flattened?

(a) very hard to rejig when a name stars with a number (which it does)....willl see what I can do. (b) we can't see it as anything other than a point of light, yet physics tells us it will be flattened (though we haven't seen it). Need to think on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did one while copyediting (regarding the numbers) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fresh look and yeah, rejigged now. Changed "would be" to "very likely flattened"... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the secondary star is brighter than expected indicates it is likely two stars very close together and inseparable with current technology. - The old red dwarf? Inseparable in viewing or ...?

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2000, it hosted a 17.4 magnitude variable star since determined to be a luminous blue variable and supernova imposter. - The nebula held this star only for a year? That's pretty darn fast, for space.

reworded - is that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it's quite jolty. You should try and use a few more transitions (however, meanwhile) and summarise key points.

becomes tricky to use contrastives if the two points aren't being contrasted in sources, but I understand. These articles are quite tricky and I will see what I can do. Astronomy can be pretty dry... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say :-) Don't think there are stars which tell other stars to eat cats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This constellation is a bit like the Delaware of constellations. I am testing the waters on smaller ones before tackling a biggie like Scorpio or Orion... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, election humour. Well, it's pretty good... just some outstanding issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2

Fix the citation needed tag.

rejigged and ditched sentence as can't find a ref for it even though obvious. got another factoid in... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have the citations in two or more columns? Makes the page look neater.

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs should be 13-digit.

all isbns 13 digit Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly suggest archiving the BBC ref and other online references.

3

History is awful short. Anything else available?

difficult as not really much to say....~~but will see what else I can find.~~ found a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More about the Leonis Minorids... I see no point in keeping a section with a single sentence.

increased it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the constellation ever had different interpretations? Spiritual / astrological connotations?

found a little bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to do a spotcheck later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

FN 13 - Title is Praecipua. Otherwise peachy.

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FN42 - All checks out, no close paraphrasing.
SIMBAD references. I tried two but my eyes started crossing within several seconds.

Yeah, not surprised. You gotta know what you're looking at to understand that...and it's a bit of an acquired art.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for a week to fix the issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this looks fairly solid now. The grammar has improved (I did some more fixes earlier), but before going to FAC I strongly suggest working on flow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]