Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pictor/archive1

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 GrahamColm 04:10, 5 September 2014 [1].

---

Pictor

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about another small constellation..we're well on our way to tidying up all the 88 constellations in the sky...18 are now at Featured status. This one came together nicely and I can't see what else to do. Let me know and I'll fix it quick-like. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Lead

• Its name is Latin for painter, but it is in fact an abbreviation of its original name Equuleus Pictoris, - Although I can follow it, this sentence is a bit of a mess. Might be a good idea to split the whole sentence into two.

rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Pictor also hosts RR Pictoris, a nova which brightened to magnitude 1.2 in 1925. - Why is it notable that it brightened in 1925? What was it before that?

clicking on nova gives you the answer - these are hitherto very faint or undetected star systems that have a cataclysmic event that sees them brighten considerably. magnitude 1.2 puts it in the top twenty stars in the sky. You think I should add something more? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Might wanna explain apparent magnitude, though I think the link is fine.

have added "(visual)" just to make clear to layreaders Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

History

• Why is Lacaille introduced as "Abbé" in the lead but not here?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Characteristics

• Pictor culminates each year at 9 p.m. on 17 March. - In a specific area? Surely more than one time zone can see it?

this only means when it's at zenith, it can be seen in lots of time zones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable features

• Link Circumstellar habitable zone.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Think the lay reader would appreciate an explanation of "and is far enough away to not be tidally locked".

added link to tidal locking and a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pictor&diff=621203662&oldid=621203248 parenthetical bit) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

General

• I think it would be a good idea to keep French to English translations in parentheses. You switched in the article between styles. I think I fixed them all though.

Prose looks good. Mostly trivial comments. ceranthor 21:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support from Ceranthor, based on the prose. ceranthor 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

I was a bit spaced out - ha, see what I did there - with all the technical stuff, but got there in the end. I suppose this subject matter is always going to be a bit wordy!

History

• Having read the lede and now into the main body, maybe saying "Pictor" instead of "the constellation" would be a useful swap? "The term Pictor was first used to describe..." Maybe?

rejigged a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think the parenthetical "(he erred in naming the wrong star with the Greek letter epsilon, which is now not used)" interrupts the flow somewhat. Could we footnote this?

yeah that works...footnoted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• "He labelled it Equuleus Pictorius on his 1763 chart.," -- we have a punctuation fight occurring the end of this sentence (my money is on the full stop as it always has the last word).

rejigged punct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think introductions for both Francis Baily and Sir John Herschel are in order here as one is forced to click a link to find out who they were. When, or indeed if you do, might I suggest using the definite article, depending of course of your BritEng / AmEng preference.

introduced. Mixed it up a little - described Herschel differently so we wouldn't have so many "astronomer"s in the para.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable features

• "Since then a planet around 8 times the mass of Jupiter has..." -- Depending on how you feel, I feel a comma after "then" would help break up the line somewhat.

yeah, comma added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• ...whereas the comma in "In 1984, Beta was the first star discovered to have a debris disk" is not entirely needed and would be more of an American way of doing things (again depending on native tongue).

yeah, comma removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Gamma Pictoris is orange giant..." →"Gamma Pictoris is an orange giant..."?

someone fixed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Up to here, more soonest! Cassianto^talk 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• "HD 42540, called 47 Pictoris by Benjamin Apthorp Gould" -- Could we have an introduction to Gould?

whoops, missed him.....added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• "is another orange giant, this time of spectral type K2.5III and average magnitude 5.04." -- Not sure of "this time" here. Also, "and average magnitude 5.04" is an odd conjunction to use; "with an average magnitude of 5.04" would be wholly better.

the use of "this time" was to introduce a slight contrastive to distinguish this from Gamma Pictoris, the previous orange giant, and make the prose sound less wooden. I have changed it to "slightly cooler" as this is derived from the spectral type directly. "witrh" intreoduced as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Could we somehow combine "It is a suspected variable star" with something with either a comma or a semi-colon?

I lengthened the sentence a little - is that ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is better. Cassianto^talk 07:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "In 2014, Kapteyn's Star..." American comma.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• "...it may have originated in a dwarf galaxy that was merged into our galaxy," -- galaxy / galaxy repetition would be better avoided.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Calculations of the speed suggest the secondary star is not dense enough for its size still to be on the main sequence," →"Calculations of the speed suggest the secondary star is not dense enough for its size to still be on the main sequence".

moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I see no other issues; an interesting subject which has been explained well despite its technical terminology. I think this meets all the criteria once some alterations have been made. Cassianto^talk 21:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio's comments

I have only read the introduction so far and I do not know much about astronomy:

that is fine - having readers unfamiliar with material helps make it as accessible as possible as we can forget which words are jargony Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• The link for "Southern sky" in redirected to "Southern hemisphere", but that page does not give a good definition of southern sky. If I looked to the south for it in the UK, I would not see Pictor. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I will try and find a better link. If you look in the Characteristics section, it explains that it is only wholly seen at latitudes south of 26 N. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "... its second-brightest star Beta Pictoris, 63.4 light-years distant, ...". Distant from what? The brightest star or from Earth. The number 63.4 does not appear in the body of the article (not found with a search), so this is factual information that only occurs in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

whoops, I must have forgotten to keep that in the body of text. Now readded. I have added "to Earth" to clarify distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "super-Earths"; sounds like jargon to me. I had to look at the linked page to find out what it meant. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, it is a succinct way of describing planets of mass greater than the earth but much less than the gas giants. The term is very widely used in astronomy and science now and not quite filtering into general speech I take it. I though the name and blue-link would be enough to explain especially as the name is pretty obvious. I guess I could describe then as "two planets heavier than Earth" but then that loses accuracy as Jupiter is heavier than Earth and that is not what we mean here. Question is, if we said "super-Earths (planets heavier than earth)", that is a bit repetitive and obvious I would have thought Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen worse jargon. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "white main sequence star Alpha Pictoris,"; contains two consecutive blue links, which should be avoided. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I rejigged the sentence to address this, as both terms should be linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

• "Pictor has attracted attention in recent years"; "recent years" seems a bit vague to me. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, upon removing the "in recent years", I realise it is redundant Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why not mention how far Alpha Pictor is away from the Earth in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Is looks like most astronomical features are capitalized, but "southern sky" is given as lower case. Why is this? Perhaps, Southern Celestial Hemisphere would be a better target, and I note that Southern Sky is capitalized on that page. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this is great. This article needed to be done beofre now and I must have missed it when linking things. Links corrected now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "... a nova which brightened to magnitude 1.2 in 1925." Presumably this was not a nova before 1925 or after 1925 (only a nova during the ictus), so I think that the language needs improving. Possibly change to something like; "A nova caused this star to brighten to magnitude 1.2 in 1925." However, I have just followed the link to "nova" and I think that this word is jargon. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

the star is the nova, the nova doesn't cause the star. It became a nova - reworded now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am puzzled, because the nova article says; "A nova (plural novae or novas) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion on a white dwarf. This makes a nova sound like an event rather than an object. The article goes on to say that a star can have more than one nova events. Is a nova a rather long-lasting event where hydrogen gravitating to the star becomes a fuel for nuclear fusion? The introduction makes it sound like the whole star became a nova, but in reality I think that it would be just hydrogen (and possibly its lower molecular weight elements) that were involved in the explosive nova event. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Did the star dim after the ictus? If so, this could be helpful in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Is RR Pictoris still subject to the nova event, which started in 1925? or has the nova event ended now? Snowman (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just noticed that RR Pic is now magnitude 12.5 as listed on List of stars in Pictor. This sounds to me that the nova event on this star has ended now, but I might be wrong. Snowman (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have also just seen the Wiki article RR Pictoris, which goes in the some of the details of the nova event. I find that the language there much more logical than in the introduction. The article says; "RR Pictoris is a cataclysmic variable star system that flared up as a nova that lit up in the constellation Pictor in 1925." I think that the expression "flared up" helps to convey that the nova event was a temporary condition. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have done some more reading and expanded the daughter article a little. I am tired and need to sleep right now but will likely rejig and use "flared" in lead - will sleep on it. You are welcome to tinker with that or I will be back in several hours Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Have rejigged the lead now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Kapteyn's Star is a red dwarf located 12.76 light-years away"; away from what. There are lots of ways of fixing this. Would it be better to list the main stars with their distances in the first paragraph and details about the stars in a subsequent paragraph? Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have added that it is the nearest star of the constellation to Earth. Will that amendment fix this? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

yes that is fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "orange dwarf"; probably should be wikilinked. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in language between Beta Pic has "as well as an extrasolar planet" and HD 40307 "is an orange dwarf that has six planets orbiting it". It is obvious that a planet going around a star in a constellation light years away from the Sun is an extrasolar planet. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

By stating it is obvious, do you mean the adjectival bit is unnecessary or necessary? I thought the best practice would be to use full title (Exoplanet) and link on first mention and then just planet thereafter as it is obvious (and hence implied) they are exoplanets (like using full name of a person at first mention before abbreviating to surname thereafter...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious, so why not just say that some of the stars of Pictor are known to have planets. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• The List of stars in Pictor say Alpha Pit is 3.24 magnitude, but the article says 3.3. I presume that to the nearest one decimal point 3.24 should be rounded down to 3.2. Why not use two decimal places? Snowman (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is at SIMBAD, which has 3.30. I have no idea how the other value got into the list and I have changed it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "the dwarf galaxy Omega Centauri swallowed up by the Milky Way." How speculative is this? Snowman (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is certain that it is a globular cluster and likely (but not certain) that it is a dwarf galaxy. Hence I will change the lead to what is certain as it is hard to be speculative. The body of the article has a bit more space so it can be touched upon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Another five stars in the constellation have been found to have extrasolar planets". This implies that there are six stars with planets. But the infobox says that there are a total of five stars with planets. Snowman (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Aaah yes. that has not been updated since Kapteyn's star discovery Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, List of stars in Pictor lists five stars with planets, unless I missed something. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That also has not been updated since Kapteyn's star discovery. I have fixed that now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• It has taken me quite a long time to realize that the easel is simply drawn as two straight lines joining up the three main stars. If this is correct, can the caption of the night sky photograph included this, and perhaps this can also be briefly included in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Constellations are notoriously inaccurate in depicting what they are supposed to depict. I have no source that discusses how and what lines depict what, so I am at a loss in what I can write here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "the original name Equuleus Pictoris". Its first Latin name is Equuleus Pictoris. The original name is "le Chevalet et la Palette". Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

you are correct, hence I have changed "original --> older" in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In the history section;

• Is there any point in showing Nicolas Louis de Lacaille's own picture of the easel in the article; is this it here? I think that a later picture by Johann Bode is here. I would guess that the easel follows the triangular shape of the configuration of several stars in the constellation, as seen from Earth. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I think I will fetch one of them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Update - Snowmanradio - I am going to be busy for a while so if you want to import one or both of those images to commons that would be great. Otherwise I might have some time in several hours Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it, I am uneasy about getting them off ridpath's site but will try to look for some original scans somewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Got one now - added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not see your request to upload an old image, because I am quite busy too and will be busy mainly working out-of-doors while the weather is dry here. In my opinion, the old image is relevant and helpful. It shows how packed together the constellations are and that Pictor is approx triangular. Also, I like the depiction of Canopus. I wonder if the caption would be better if it also explained briefly the constellations of the fish and the keel of the boat. Other than being visual, I am not sure why it helps me. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

no problem - image added now. yes can add that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the general guidelines on drawings is that it is recommended to include the artist in the caption. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is the old image upside down to both the image in infobox and the photograph? Snowman (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If you look at his original planisphere. All the writing is facing one way more or less and the south pole is at the centre, so the writing is facing all different directions instead of facing north. Convention of the other maps is different, with north upwards. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Probably best to explain how a French astronomer discovered a constellation which his only seen from the Southern Hemisphere. Snowman (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In other sections:

• "Pictor is a faint constellation, its three brightest stars forming a line near the prominent Canopus." It is not possible for one straight line to join the three main stars as seen from Earth. Two straight lines are needed. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, but the sentence does not specify the line is straight. And the three are a bit too linear to be clearly a triangle (well, a very flat one). Any three stars can be connected by two lines so that would make the comment redundant. I am open to suggestions..."bent line"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Two straight lines angled at the middle star". What is the angle in degrees? See Line (geometry). Could exclude all mention of lines and just say that the three main stars are near to Canopus. Snowman (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done that as the easiest Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably easiest and best way. Snowman (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Provisional impression. Until recently, I was concerned that all the reviewers including myself had little knowledge of astronomy. I think that the long section on stars in the "Notable features" section is too long and its length put me off from reading it. I think that there is probably a better way to organize the the information on stars with more sub-headings. I think that some tables might be useful. Perhaps, a table on "Stars known to have planets" would be useful and perhaps some other tables or lists would help. I will leave it to others to decide if this article is FA or not. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The event was remote, with a redshift of 0.54". Most distances are given as light years, so the use of redshift as a distance does not seem consistent. Why not give the equivalent distance in light years as well here? Snowman (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think that the flow if the second paragraph of the introduction could be improved. Any comments? Should deep sky objects be included in the introduction? Snowman (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I rejigged lead to make material segue on more naturally. I am tempted to add Pictor A to lead though might write the article first. Not keen on a redlink in the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• • I do not know much about astronomy, but I found watching "The Sky at Night" on TV interesting. Can the second paragraph in the introduction be made any more interesting? I have not been sufficiently motivated to read the long paragraph about stars from beginning to end, but this might be because I am rather busy doing tasks out-of-doors. Snowman (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you found it interesting. I understand your concern but am wary of keeping speculative facts out of the lead. I will have a think on this and see what of the more extreme things are more solid to put in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a 1925 newspaper report of the nova; see Trove. They called it Nova Watson-Pictoris then. What was understood about a nova back then? Going on this small newspaper report, I would think that the nova was not high profile in the media at that time, but I might have missed some more prominent newspaper reports. Surely, if a nova appearing as bright at that happened now, then it would be in the mass media and lots of people would look for it. How unusual is this sort of nova phenomenon? Snowman (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that it would be better not to gauge a the nova entirely by visual magnitude in the introduction. Why not say that it was one of the 10 brightest stars or whatever is appropriate and this will be immediately obvious to general readers? Snowman (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree - I did want to put that it was one of the brightest star in the sky as that would be much more engaging for readers but was unable to find a source that ranked it like that in peer-reviewed material. I will have another look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You could compare it to the brightness of stars in List of brightest stars, which would give you a rough estimate of how many stars were still brighter than it at the peak; the other way would be to say that it was as roughly as bright as Deneb, with a note comparing the magnitudes (but be careful to compare brightness in the same colour band) - that may fall fowl of WP:OR though... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I have avoided OR but just stating the other fact as a footnote without a comparison as such Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The introduction does not make it clear why Beta Pictoris came to attention, but it describes some of its features. Snowman (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Because of the facts outlined immediately following it (the dust disk and planet of Beta Pictoris - the word "because" is the link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Provisional impression 2. I think that the article fails to engage a general reader like myself. To me, the introduction seems mediocre or weak. Snowman (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that, though I think generally that people who click on it might be more interested than a person with no interest in the topic reviewing for FA status - I will try to look on the specifics and actionable items. I do think alot of your comments have been very helpful. Some other events led my attention away yesterday and my time has been patchy. I want to ensure what I put in is supported by sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, in terms of text only (I bring no knowledge about the subject to the table). Nicely put together and good enough to support. Two things that may need a quick tweak: History: Caption of the image has "Canopus of Carina": Carina is a disambig link; and FNs FN d finishes "Eta1, Eta2etc": needs a space before etc, I think? – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done both - good pickups - thanks for the support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Support The two lengthy reviews have left no crumbs of infelicity for me to pick up. Reads very well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Unless I've missed it above, has anyone with some expertise in physics and/or astronomy reviewed this? No slight on Cas or on the very welcome reviews for prose and accessibility, but we do like the range of comments to be as broad as possible. As well as the text itself, I'm thinking in terms of a source review for reliability (as it looks to me that Schro gave them the once-over for formatting). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question - I don't think so. Constellation articles are less technical than star ones, which need more input on astrophysics. I have found leaving messages on astronomy wikiproject has not resulted in much feedback and will think on who I can ping Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See what you can do but don't sweat it too much -- if no-one else elects to comment we can only go with the consensus as we have it, and I don't consider the risk particularly high because, as you say, these are not as technical as some and your track record is good... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Mikle Peel, so let's see how we go....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Peel

Thanks Cas Liber for the note on my talk page. Here's some comments from a scientific perspective that I hope will be useful:

• History
  • "two-year stay at the Cape of Good Hope". It would be good to be more specific about where he was staying. I don't think there's an observatory at the Cape itself - perhaps he was staying in Cape Town? Or did he have a cottage somewhere in the area?

have added it as a footnote Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Characteristics:
  • It would be good to give a definition of the polygon defining the constellation, or to point to the infobox picture as an illustration of it.

note telling folks to look in infobox added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• • It might be worth mentioning how far south you have to go before the constellation is always in the sky.

added what I could find Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Stars:
  • Alpha Pictoris - it would be better to reference the journal article directly for the spectral type, rather than just simbad (the relevant reference is given in simbad).

ref added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• • "In 1984 Beta was" - I wouldn't shorten the name to "Beta" - better to use the full names. It seems to be a toss-up about whether the greek letter should be spelt out or used directly - the latter might be more compact though.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• • I'd recommend linking to the journal article for the Beta Pictoris planet discovery, either instead of or in addition to the press release, and giving an uncertainty range rather than saying "approximately 8 AU". Also, I'd link to Very Large Telescope rather than the European Southern Observatory.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Beta Pictoris moving group would be worth mentioning.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• • "In 2014 Kapteyn's Star was announced to host two super-Earths" - the grammar could be better by saying "In 2014 it was announced that Kapteyn's Star has two super-Earths", but scientifically it would be good to say by which method they were discovered. The same goes for other exosolar planets in the constellation.

done for all the planets. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Magnitude (astronomy) should probably be linked to from somewhere in the article, making it clear that it's apparent magnitude rather than absolute magnitude/actual luminosity.

I have apparent magnitude linked at first mention in lead and in body of text. Not sure if this extra one is needed to Magnitude (astronomy) and if so where from Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Deep-sky objects
  • I'm fairly sure there will be more objects worth mentioning than are currently listed here, but you'll need to search for them based on coordinates as constellations aren't really used that much in modern astronomy.

I tried looking for stuff using "pictor" and some keywords in Google scholar. Will give it once more but the idea is that the constellation page is for more notable objects and not more exhaustive... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Pictor A, rather than saying "remote" it would be better to give its redshift (0.035058) or luminosity distance (149 Megaparsec - numbers from [2], search for Pictor A).

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• • GRB 060729 might be worth mentioning. Also, there might be more useful material at [3] that can be incorporated here. (Yes, this is where I spotted the GRB, rather than searching on the coordinates...)

GRB definitely notable and added. am scouring for anything else. Coordinates is going to ce a challenge....the words.."needle" and "haystack" come tio mind... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

From a Wikipedian perspective, I'd also comment that this article might be better as more of a bulleted list / series of sections summarising the different objects. It's difficult to glance at the article and see what the key constituents of the constellation are. Also, I'd recommend either using the external links as references in the article, or removing them if they don't add value to the page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

removed external links - these are often added to constellation articles...agree they don't add anything. Regarding list vs prose - yes I've mused on this as constellation articles are by nature pretty listy. I felt there were natural enough threads in the material that I could make it into a prosey segment, but at least one constellation has been done as a list. Might be worth discussing at the astronomy wikiproject overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've also asked a colleague who knows rather more about stars than me, Iain McDonald, to have a look at the article. Here's his comments:

• Introduction: no citations listed

generally don't need inlines in lead as all material in lead is in body (and reffed at that point) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Introduction > Kapteyn's star: it is likely to have been a member of a small galaxy that has been swallowed by the Milky Way, of which omega Centauri (note lower case omega, following the Bayer designation) is a suggested candidate. It's quite metal-rich for omega Centauri, although a small handful of stars do have this metallicity.

I suspect that is more of an issue to go in detail on the page about the star - I can only go on the sources...so leaving it as a possibility (which some sources consider it to be) and then leaving the pros and cons to the daughter page on the star I thought was the best way of summarising. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• History: "canvass" -> "canvas"

f:::oops..missed that; extra 's' removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Notable features > Stars: I got lost in this section. Would it be better as a bulletted list?

see above. I figure the blue text serves as markers for items to read or click on Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Notable features > Stars > Delta Pictoris: it's worth saying the stars are oval shaped because they are gravitationally distorted by each other (rather than rotationally distorted like alpha Pic).

good point...added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Notable features > Stars > RR Pictoris: it's not clear what's meant by "calculations of the speed" (-> "calculations from the orbital speed"?)

yep. orbital speed. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that there's only one comment above from Mike that's not been acknowledged, yes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

aah, forgot about that. fixing it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

thanx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.