Talk:Delta Muscae

Delta Muscae was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 22, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Delta Muscae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose[edit]

I'd like to do a more thorough review of the prose after the other issues have been resolved. For now, here are the issues that I noticed:

These sentences seem to conflict with each other. Is it a giant star or just larger than a dwarf? Is it a dwarf that will become a giant?
- "K2 stars are on the smaller end of the Harvard spectral classification list, solely being larger than Class-M dwarves."
- "The second part of the classification, III, specifies that Delta Muscae is a giant star which has yet to reach the main sequence of star life like our sun."

MoS[edit]

Uranometria is mentioned in the lead but not in the rest of the article.
If spectroscopic binary can't be explained in the lead, just call it a binary.
The constellation must be explained later in the article, not just in the lead. You probably need to add a "History" section for this and the Bayer stuff.

Citations[edit]

"There is no available data concerning Delta Muscae A's companion." This statement needs a reference.

Original research[edit]

"With this data, it can be calculated that Delta Muscae is situated at a distance of 27.8 parsecs, or 91.0 light years, from the sun." The calculation needs to be explained in a note.

Major aspects[edit]

For a subject this mundane I should not come away from reading it with unanswered questions. I had two, both of which can be answered by bringing in additional source material.

This star is part of the constellation Musca, which is supposed to look like a bug. What part of the bug does δ represent?
The star is a spectroscopic binary, which means that its companion was identified by a doppler shift. This shift should be periodic. What was the period? Does the period allow a mass determination of the star or its invisible companion? I found two sources which contain more information on this binary system:
- Sixth Catalog of Orbits of Visual Binary Stars
- "Astrometric orbits of S_B⁹ stars". Astronomy & Astrophysics. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053003.

Otherwise, this article looks very close to Good Article quality. I am impressed that you were able to write such a nice article using only a few databases as sources. This review is on hold for improvements. Wronkiew (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Some issues I have with this article.

The first sentence suffers from excessive run-on. From this sentence it isn't entirely clear whether it means that Delta Muscae is the nearest spectroscopic binary in Musca, or the nearest star system in Musca.
This must be fixed before the article is promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"often catalogued as HD 112985" ... really? It may often be referred to by its HD designation, but the HD catalog has been completed.
This would be good to fix, but it is not necessary for the review. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The main star is classified as a giant star with an orange tint" - is that actually a classification or a statement of what it is? It doesn't look like a formal classification to me.
Good to fix, not necessary for the review. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for the assertion that Delta Muscae is the nearest star to the Earth in the constellation Musca. Really? No dim M-dwarfs in that direction? Solely linking the Gliese catalogue is not relevant as it is not necessarily complete. Since it is a well-known fact that our knowledge of red dwarf and brown dwarf stars is very incomplete beyond a few parsecs, stating that there are nearly 3800 stars closer to Earth than delta Muscae is misleading.
This must be fixed before the article is promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"3.61(v) to be exact" - is that exact or just more precise? What does the v in brackets mean? Do you mean the visual magnitude?
Good to fix, not necessary for the review. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for the assertion that Delta Muscae can be seen without light pollution - the Hipparcos catalog which is given as a reference does not make any statements about naked-eye visibility.
This must be fixed before the article is promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"K2 stars are on the smaller end of the Harvard spectral classification list, solely being larger than Class-M dwarves." - this is confusing. This seems to be a confusion of the properties of main-sequence stars and giants. Main sequence K stars are indeed smaller and less luminous than, say, main sequence G stars, but Delta Muscae is NOT a main sequence star. Once you throw out the "main sequence" bit, you can't do such a comparison. You can say a K2III star is cooler than, say, a G2III one (but it is NOT necessarily smaller), but bear in mind that the typical temperature of a given class (e.g. K2) varies with luminosity class (e.g. V, III).
This must be fixed before the article is promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The usual plural of "dwarf" in astronomy is "dwarfs" not "dwarves".
Good to fix, not necessary for the review. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icalanise (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the additional comments. You caught some serious issues that I had overlooked. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not promoted. Please re-nominate it after the above issues have been addressed. Wronkiew (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA fixes[edit]

Thanks for the review. Those changes shouldn't take me too long and I appreciate the patience given this is my first time through the process. I'll find some time in the next few days to complete the changes necessary and then leave a message on your talk page. SkarmCA (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]