Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capella/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2017 [1].

Capella[edit]

Nominator(s): Lithopsian (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sixth brightest star in the sky. It's been a collaborative effort with a few folks involved, Spacepotato brought it to GA-hood and I have tried to buff it with Lithopsian. We think it is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

looks fine so far Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "observers north of 44°N. its name meaning": ?
whoops/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it and Capella were situated rather close to each other": How many light-years apart? Or were they only close as viewed from Earth?
the latter. Does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It helps. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Capella was seen as a portent of rain in classical times.": In what way?
source doesn't clarify. presumably though the star appeared just before a regular rainy season and ancient observers (falsely) suspected causation... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are readers likely to infer that meaning, or any particular meaning, from your text? I leave the question with you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "apparently detected and confirmed an X-ray source": Why apparently?
good point/removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 723": Typo? Just checking.
Not a typo. 723 arc-seconds. Does it need clarifying? Linking? This unit occurs quite a few times and units tend to be abbreviated except possibly for the first occurrence. Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just checking if it was a typo. You don't usually see 723 arcseconds, for the same reason that you generally don't see a time interval measured as "723 seconds". - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2016 measurement gives the magnitude different between the two stars at 700nm as 0.00 ± 0.1.": I don't follow. "magnitude difference", maybe?
Yes, a typo. Corrected. Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • References 10, 27 and 59 are showing stray square brackets and should be fixed.
all tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference 84 has missing }
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 86 has no English translation of title.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 84 & 86 use different way to indicate language to other entries.
both tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Line-of-sight links via optical double, but does not go to a useful point in the article.
that article is a mess. Need to rejig target article before finding somewhere to link to. frustrating... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've snuck "line-of-sight" into the lead of double star which seems like a quick way to satisfy readers that they've reached the right place. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a teaser about differences in isotope abundances, but there is no detail. This would be a missing knowledge in the article.
added a footnote but need to sleep as should get another sentence to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote covers what I was referring to. The differences indicate the more advanced evolution of the primary. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there is nothing about elemental composition and how it compares to the sun etc. Are there any molecules in the spectrum?
not seen any molecules mentioned. Metallicity similar to our Sun. Will write after sleeping Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence about heavy element abundances. There isn't anything striking about them, other than the already-mentioned differences between the two giants. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haedi is not a useful link, dropping you in at the top of the constellation.
Now linked to Auriga (constellation)#Eclipsing_binary_stars Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

linked to dynamical parallax Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • chandra Links to the Wrong subject.
linked to Chandra X-ray Observatory now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speckle imaging could do with a link.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "In traditional Chinese astronomy" the name is given in four forms, traditional, simplified, pinyin and English translation. This ia a bit undue. We can do without the simplified characters, as they are an anachronism. People that can actually read Chinese can go to the Cinese language article if they cannot cope with traditional characters. After all the native scripts for Macedonian or Indian laguages are not included.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can still see "五车" in there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That one removed also. Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've used that destination. There seems to be little on the Boorong, even to make a stub. 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ancient Balts deserve a link to make it clear who/where they were.
linked to Balts as (a) there is no subarticle and (b) it isn't clear from the original article about the age Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 62 and 63 are dupicates.
unified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 82 is a translation, so it should probably say so in the template J F is the translator. Reference 83 is the same work untranslated, but author name is different to 82, and the language, Latin, is not indicated.
added all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent space between initials in references, eg 26 vs 28. I believe the MOS says to put a space.
I've always had no space - I can't se the bit where it says use a space. So have streamlined to unspaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:INITIALS. Lithopsian (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sigh...ok then...will do....all done I think.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added some Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
all linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at the diffs you have not been using the template parameters, it should be for example author-link1=Dorrit Hoffleit and author-link2 = Noah Brosch. etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've got them all fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the images need to have alt= text added for those using text readers
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now checked all the wiki links. We should convert the see also section to a one or two sentences summarising the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes - that has been tricky given the obscure nature of most of the fictional material. Still, I found two that are discussed in secondary sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am doing the spelling and symbol check.

  • In the infobox some of the magnitude parameters include the minus sign "−" ie "U−B", B−V, V−R, R−I. This seems wrong to me and could be ndash or hyphen instead.
Umm, they are all supposed to be minuses. that's the point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In info box the surface gravity uses mdash "—" in a range. This is wrong too.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 21 Monte Albán should have "á" not "a".
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BD+45°1076" has a degree symbol in it, which appears to the the incorrect format for these catalog names. It should be "BD+45 1076"
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also having trouble seeing that this has been called Capella component G but not a problem really unless reference disconfirms it.
The Washington Double Star Catalogue (main reference for this table), as well as other multiple star catalogues, list all these components including G. They pretty much include all relatively bright stars within about a quarter of a degree, related or not. Lithopsian (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "catalog" or "catalogue" ?
catalogue unless talking about a particular Catalog with US spelling... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HIPPARCOS" normally appears as "Hipparcos" - should be made consistent.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simbad" normally appears as "SIMBAD", should all be the same
Agree...except the two lowercase ones seem to arise from Template:Componentbox component..which I am not sure how to unpack and fix.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can fix the componentbox template to have SIMBAD if you think that's appropriate. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Lithopsian (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Praemonitus[edit]

Support: My concerns listed below were addressed. I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Good job! Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I took a quick pass through the text and found a few issues.
  • There no discussion of the tidal evolution of this system, and no mention of the detached state of the orbit throughout their respective evolution. I.e. was there a Roche lobe overflow? No, according to Torres et al (2011).
added note - wasn't sure whether to move stuff up to that section about more massive star's maximum radius as a red giant, which is currently further down the page... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Components section may be confusing since it is using the same notation for different units. At a minimum, I'd suggest using the HTML ′ (′) and ″ (″) for the angular notation.
I spelled out feet and inches to avoid confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency about capitalizing 'Sun'.
capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should mention that the rotational velocities are projected, not the actual equatorial velocities. You can't directly compare them without know the respective inclinations of their polar axes.
I mentioned this where relevant. It is somewhat unimportant for this star given the known rotational periods. The inclinations and absolute rotational velocities are also known. Lithopsian (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How were the rotational periods derived? I'm assuming from measuring periodic variability of their surface activity.
Directly measured in the same way as the orbital motions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "700 nm": it should indicate this is a wavelength.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first use of 'metallicity' in the article body should be linked.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look later for more. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Praemonitus:, ready for more comments... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Right then, just a few more remarks:

  • Bailer-Jones (2015) computed the mean perihelion distance as 28.86 ly (8.849 pc), which occurred around 237,000 years ago. Would this be worth including in the Distance section? See also Capella's entry on the Historical brightest stars listing.
I forgot about that and like this sorta stuff....added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "late F or early G": the reader may be unfamiliar with the use of early or late as astronomical conventions. Perhaps "late (cooler) F or early (warmer) G"?
good point/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations for the four IAU bulletins (12-15) can be filled out a little more.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks good. Praemonitus (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and cooled and swollen away from the main sequence — I don't like the conflation of a physical move with a classification move
how about "off"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I re-worded again, in a way that I think avoids any implication of physical motion. Lithopsian (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25-inch telescope — conversion?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put this in a {{convert}} template, which gives quite a different cm value. Lithopsian (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • United Kingdom and Scandinavia, most of France, Canada and the northernmost United States— A bit selective to have only N America and western Europe. I would think that Finland, Germany, the Baltic states and Russia have at least as good a claim as France
Not sure how the non-anglophone countries got in there. Have just left the ones mentioned in the source. Folks can always click on the 44th Parallel too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them, I think we still need image and source reviews. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • I tweaked your citation format to make the links work.
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links all seem to work fine.
  • You list Moore & Tirion in your works cited, but I don't think it's actually cited in the article.
removed - I had replaced the page refs with journals Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 76 is a short cite to Winterburn 2009, but the full cite is nowhere to be found.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Brosch long cite and in fn 8, you list the pages as "pp. 9–" with no end page.
oops, forgot to reformat after I fetched the ref. Fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same in fn 84, where it's "pp. 17–"
removed dash Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited texts are also inconsistent in whether they have the publication location or not. Either is correct, but they should be the same. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ah sod it, removed 'em all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, then, everything looks to be in order. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Has images
  • No other media included, so there are no movies or animated images. There could be an animation of stars in orbit, or moving across the sky, but not really needed. What we could do with is a sound file recording the pronunciation, even IPA symbols may be useful.
  • File:Auriga constellation map.svg is recommended instead of File:Auriga constellation map.png. Is there a reason this is not used?
no/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should maybe remove this? It isn't a great image, especially with the foreign language labels. I just wanted to have something to help with the pole-star text. Lithopsian (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I removed it. It doesn't have the source for the data that the trajectories are based on either Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image has annotations marking the Pleiades, Auriga, and Capella. Only on Commons though. Lithopsian (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removed pending proper licencing info Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Celestia.png has a poor description that does not include author or date, and it appears that the destination no longer includes that image. However the image is likely just two public domain pictures superimposed, so no need to take it down.
I don't see this image on the page? Lithopsian (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's an icon in the top right of the page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. That's from the {{sky}} template. Lithopsian (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no fair use images.
  • Images all have suitable captions.
  • All images have suitably free licenses supplied.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2017 (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/Capella/archive1&oldid=1144183693"