Jump to content

Talk:Pleione (star)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePleione (star) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 8, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Feedback from Casliber

[edit]

Okay, one of my pet peeves on wikipedia is overview sections. The idea of sections is dividing text into 'chapters' of related context. However 'overview' is a summary...and the lead is a summary, so hence a second summary is repetitious and redundant. I also like conformity so suggest looking at other Star Featured Articles (eg. Sirius, Tau Ceti, Barnard's Star (ack! It has an overview section!! so RJHall might disagree with me on this...) and rearranging the headings thusly.

  • I would convert Overview into Visibility - I'd take out the two sentences starting Pleione nonetheless.. and place at the top of the next section which I'd call Properties which would include the section called Be Star and System - make the last a subsection (level 3 heading).

Anyways, my thoughts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insights. I'm preparing a more substantive reply pursuant to the research you've proposed above. I hope to have something posted here within 24 hours. Sadalsuud (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short precis

[edit]

I have no problems with overview sections, since some articles have extremely long intro sections, and that should not be the case. The intro should be a short precis, with a longer overview section following, so that you can get the gist of the article in the lead section, and see if you want to read it, or if it's the wrong article, and not what you're looking for. The overview summarizes the article, and if you want details, you can read the rest of it. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star section headings

[edit]

Your feedback on section headings makes sense to me. Standards work. They help users quickly identify what they're looking for. In fact, in thinking about your comments, it occurred to me that they apply not just to this article but star articles in general. As a result, I've decided to take the time to fully investigate this issue with the intention of inviting a discussion for the benefit of any editor interested in star articles. Sorry for the overkill. Once I got into it, it took on a life of its own. The bottom line is that I have wrestled with this issue again and again myself, and so I figured it was best to deal with it head-on, in all of its implications.

In a later section, I also provide additional remarks on the best design for Optional Sections as well. It seems to me that having this discussion all in one place might be useful for any editor interested in taking star articles to "FA status".

So... in addition to the 3 articles you reference above (Sirius, Tau Ceti, Barnard's Star), I examined the 3 other "Featured" star articles — Vega, IK Pegasi and Proxima Centauri, the 4 High-Importance "Good" articles — Algol, Altair, Capella and Beta Pictoris, as well as many of the other High-Importance star articles. There are several observations that stand out:

  • Each article is quite different in design and organization, although there appear to be 4 or 5 major themes found in each, depending on what makes most sense from an organizational standpoint;
  • The 4 or 5 major themes closely correlate with the Starbox structure;
  • Current star section nomenclature is quite fuzzy. If you click on "Observation" for instance, you don't know if you will be accessing "Visibility" information or the star's "Observational history"; and
  • Star data is highly interconnected making it a challenge to standardize. As you look at each of the 10 articles referenced above, you see significant overlap from section to section. Consequently, it appears that headings (nomenclature) can provide a useful organizational outline, but should not be rigidly adhered to, as the quality of the article would likely suffer. An example of this point is the article on Sirius where orbital characteristics enter into the "Visibility" conversation and mythological elements are addressed in the "Observational History" section. Would we want to completely redesign the article to conform to a definitive structure? Probably not.

Nevertheless, I'm with you. I like structure, or as you call it "conformity". Consequently, if we are interested in creating effective nomenclature for this and potentially future articles, it's useful to distinguish the main themes (primary headings) from the sub-themes (secondary headings). Also given the different headings that are currently being used, I combine them all here on one line so we can compare "apples and apples".

Sadalsuud (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main themes and sub-themes

[edit]

Observational history

[edit]
  1. Starbox Section: None
  2. Major Headings: Observational history - Observation history - Observation
  3. Notable Sub-Themes: Significant discoveries - Major turning points - Disputes - Astronomers (whose research had a major impact).
  4. Remarks: This is an important section. Read an article in any astronomical journal, and you notice that astronomers inevitably put their own research into context. That to me is what this section is about, at a rudimentary level. As such, this section simply describes the evolution of different observations — specifically major turning points in our understanding of different stars. In the case of Sirius, there is some overlap with Mythology as it discusses ancient cultures like Egypt. How "Observational History" is distinct from Mythology will likely be a decision each editor will have to make. It might be useful however to keep this "Observational History" section reserved for relatively recent scientific investigation (i.e. after Copernicus). Anything before then can be dealt with in a section or sub-section on Mythology.
  5. Nomenclature: The best nomenclature is "Observational History". It's far more descriptive than just the word "Observation" and avoids any confusion due to its similarity with the word "Visibility" (see Visibility, #4 Remarks below). "Observation History", though perhaps grammatically correct, doesn't sound right to my ear.

Visibility

[edit]
  1. Starbox Sections: Observation Data, Characteristics, and Astrometry
  2. Major Headings: Visibility - Visibility and distance - Visibility and location - Motion - Kinematics - Sky appearance - Overview
  3. Notable Sub-Themes: Apparent magnitude - Absolute magnitude - Variability (i.e. its many distinctions) - Distance - Location - Radial velocity - Proper motion - Angular distance - Best viewing times - Hipparcos or Hubble telescope information - Telescopic apertures
  4. Remarks: The sub-themes can all be effectively addressed under the generic terminology "Visibility". Given the similarity of meanings associated with the words "Visibility" and "Observation", there are some articles that use the two interchangeably, which is problematic (See Proxima Centauri and IK Pegasi) as the respective concepts behind "Observational History" and "Visibility" tend to become fused, thus losing any functionality they might have as major headings. The articles that do the best job of distinguishing the two main themes are Sirius amd Vega. Also, this is the section which makes the widest use of nomenclature, as you point out in your feedback — specifically use of the word "Overview" in the Barnard's Star article and the "Motion" section in Tau Ceti. If you study both those sections, they're "Visibility" sections with related or additional information. Another problem with the word "Overview" is that it's not only redundant, as you point out, but it's so broad that it can encompass anything, making its usefulness somewhat suspect as a major heading. If I originally chose it for Pleione, it was exactly for that reason. You can pretty much write anything you want under that heading. Hmmmmmm!
  5. Nomenclature: So, if we want the nomenclature to be distinct, confusing "Observation" with "Visibility" is not useful. The term "Overview" is too general while the heading "Motion" is probably too specific for a major heading. In this respect "Visibility" is likely the better term, particularly if we want it to stand out from "Observational history".

Properties

[edit]
  1. Starbox Sections: Details
  2. Major Headings: Properties - Physical properties - Astronomical properties - Characteristics - Stellar characteristics
  3. Notable Sub-Themes: Mass - Radius - Luminosity - Temperature - Metallicity - Rotation (Oblateness) - Age - Circumstellar environment (Debris disks, Accretion disks, Decretion disks, Planetesimals, Planetary systems)
  4. Remarks: With the Properties and System sections, we run into some fundamental organizational challenges. One could argue that the major heading is Properties and the sub-heading is System. However, the reverse can also be true as we see in the case of Sirius. Most of the time, the Properties section will dominate. First of all, it appears that most star systems are single. (See Research Findings). Secondly, with most systems there are comparatively few details available for the orbiting components. So in both of these cases it makes sense to have a Properties section, focus on the main star, and have other themes as sub-headings under Properties. However, if there are many details known for each star in the system or optical pair, then the organization might proceed as it has with Sirius, IK Pegasi, and Algol where the Properties section is scrapped altogether and becomes a subset of System. In conclusion, it appears that both Properties and System are major headings in their own right, to be used whichever way makes the most sense.
  5. Nomenclature: It's a toss-up between "Properties" and "Characteristics". I'd vote for "Properties", if only to distinguish it from the Starbox distinction "Characteristics". Given the Starbox usage, the reader doesn't know whether the writer is referring to "Characteristics" in its general sense, or in its restricted "Starbox" sense. So at best the heading "Characteristics" is vague and confusing. That's not useful. The headings "Physical Properties", "Astronomical Properties" or "Stellar Characteristics" are all pretty much redundant. The word "Physical" is doubly problematic as the average reader may not recognize that this adjective refers to "Physics" rather than its typical connotations of "tangible", "corporeal" or "concrete".

Star system

[edit]
  1. Starbox Sections: Orbit and Relative Position
  2. Major Headings: System - Star system - Stellar system - System components - Binary star - Double star - Triple star - Optical double - Optical companion - Visual companions
  3. Notable Sub-Sections: Orbital characteristics, Relative position, Circumstellar environment (Debris disks, Accretion disks, Decretion disks, Planetesimals, Planetary systems), The star's neighborhood.
  4. Remarks: There are several challenges here. "System" is clearly the most succinct terminology. But what do you do in the case of a star where both a star system and planetary system exist? (See Upsilon Andromedae). Do you call one "System" and the other "Planetary System"? Perhaps. It seems to me however, that with more and more planetary discoveries occurring, the term "System" becomes more ambiguous with time and therefore not so useful as a major heading. As technology evolves, we may find that most stars have planets orbiting them, making the distinction between "Star System" and "Planetary System" even more important. In any event, clearly delineating between the two seems like the best way to go to me. A second problem is when no system has been identified and there is but a line-of-sight Double star in existence. In this case, given the ambiguity surrounding the default nomenclature of Double Star (see Talk:Double star), I'd prefer to use more accurate and comprehensive terminology like "Adjacent stars" or "Contiguous Stars" — that way avoiding the ambiguity associated therewith. "Visual companions" seems to avoid that ambiguity (See Capella). But the word "companion" is typically associated with binary stars, so to me that nomenclature doesn't really solve the problem either. Whether editors are comfortable inventing new terminology like "Adjacent Stars" is another question open for debate. I just toss it out here as a possibility. Finally the third problem has to do with whether a "Planetary system" should exist as a major heading in its own right. I deal with this more in the next section "Other main themes?". As I point out below, the term "Circumstellar environment" is the broader concept and is probably more useful if there is simply speculation occurring.
  5. Nomenclature: There are a lot of options here, and so the choice is to either allow them to all have their time in the Sun (sorry for the pun) or make some arbitrary decisions. "Star System" and "Planetary System" would get my vote as major headings for reasons just discussed. Qualitative terminology like "binary", "ternary", "quadruple" is not useful for a major heading and would serve better as a sub-heading. If there is no star system, then my vote would be to create the distinction "Adjacent stars" and give it some momentum.

Etymology and cultural significance

[edit]
  1. Starbox Section: None
  2. Major Headings: Etymology and cultural significance - Etymology, mythology, and culture - Other names - Other names and history - Etymology and cultural associations - Myths - Legacy
  3. Notable Sub-Themes: Etymology - Mythology - Astrology - Cultural significance - Press - General fiction - Science fiction - Modern legacy
  4. Remarks: This is a fairly diverse group of sub-themes — a kind of Smörgåsbord really — where oddly each dish tries to show up on the main menu at one point or another. The pivotal concept behind all these themes however is culture and its impact — both yesterday and today. So instead of using arbitrary combinations of the above sub-themes or restricting oneself to one or two, a more elegant solution would be to come up with one phrase that captures all possibilities. "Ethnological influences" or "Ethnological impact" are two possibilities that come to mind. Given that the term "Ethnology" is typically defined as that science which analyzes and compares human civilizations, cultures — their social structure, language, religion, mythology and technology, the two headings just proposed appear to encompass all the different nuances that this section requires. Perhaps there are better ones. But these are the two that grab my attention.
  5. Nomenclature: "Etymology and cultural significance" is fairly well established as a heading. In my mind it doesn't capture all the possibilities. We can stick with it simply because of the momentum it's already gained or we can come up with a better phrase that is a more accurate description of the overall section.

Conclusions?

[edit]

After taking 4 days to investigate this issue in detail I have come to a few conclusions:

  • It appears that editors are generally looking for some kind of structure in the design of these articles, if only for the fact that you see the same headings being replicated everywhere;
  • Whether we want to standardize the main headings should be a consensus decision of the Wikipedia community. I've just tried to pull all the pieces together in one place so we can step back and take a good look at this issue;
  • There is possibly an informal MOS rule that we might want to adopt for star articles:
Major Headings should be standardized terms common to stars in general (i.e. Visibility, Properties, etc.); minor headings are descriptive, even colorful and evocative terms that point to the unique characteristics of each star.

Other main themes?

[edit]

Planetary system

[edit]
  1. Major Headings: Planetary system - Life and planet searches - Claims of a planetary system - Possibility of planets - Circumbinary planets - Potential for life
  2. Remarks: If planets have been discovered orbiting a particular star and their orbits identified, then "Planetary system" functions well as a main heading (See Vega, Epsilon Eridani, and especially List of planetary systems). If there is simply speculation to this effect (Tau Ceti, Beta Pictoris), then "Planetary system" will likely function better as a sub-heading under "Circumstellar environment", "Properties", or "Star System". I don't think that "Claims of a planetary system" makes sense as a major heading. If we are truly interested in consistent phraseology, "Planetary system" should be sufficient. The notion of claims can be discussed in the body of the article or in a sub-heading.
  3. Nomenclature: Planetary system is the best term for a major heading. The others could function OK as sub-headings, although once "Planetary system" is established in an article, an editor might want to get more creative with the sub-headings pointing to the some of the unique claims or controversies that exist.

Circumstellar environment

[edit]
  1. Major Headings: Circumstellar environment, Circumstellar envelope, Circumstellar matter, Circumstellar disks
  2. Remarks: The concept of "Circumstellar environment" is both useful, but challenging. One could argue that it should only serve as a sub-heading under "Properties" or "System". If there is only 1-2 paragraphs on the subject, then that would make sense. But if there is a lot of information, (See Beta Pictoris), or if there is speculation regarding the existence of a planetary system, I would argue that it is better off as a major heading.
  3. Nomenclature: Each of the different terms above seem to work well to describe the space surrounding a star (i.e. Accretion, Debris and Protoplanetary disks, Planetesimals, the gaseous disk surrounding Be stars etc.). "Circumstellar environment" appears to be the most generic, and therefore useful as a term to agglomerate multiple concepts. The term "Circumstellar envelope" has already gained some momentum to describe the effects of the stellar wind, and like the term "Circumstellar disks" might be too specific for use as a major heading. "Circumstellar matter" also seems to work well.

The star's neighbourhood

[edit]
  1. Major Headings: The star's neighbourhood
  2. Remarks: This section heading for Barnard's Star bothers me for a few reasons. First it's not consistent with Wikipedia MOS rules—use of the word "The" in a heading. Secondly, it's meaning is a little fuzzy. A better phrase which is seen in different articles is "Stellar neighbourhood". The difference is perhaps subtle, but it points more to the concept of "neighbouring stars" than the star's immediate neighbourhood—a notion which is too closely aligned with "Circumstellar environment" for my liking. If editors have other thoughts on this, I'd be happy to hear them.
  3. Nomenclature: Other possible headings: Stellar neighbourhood - Nearby stars -

Dust stream

[edit]
  1. Major Headings: Dust stream
  2. Remarks: I don't know about this topic as a major heading (See Beta Pictoris). In reading this section, it appears that the author wanted to distinguish between phenomena that is gravitationally bound to a star or system (i.e. circumstellar environment) and that which is not. In that case, maybe "Dust Stream" fits better as a sub-theme under "Stellar Neighborhood". Maybe it doesn't. Moreover, maybe there are other phenomena that occur in the local "neighborhood" that could be also included under this umbrella. (i.e. Rogue Planets, Interplanetary medium... any thoughts?) It just seems that "Dust stream" is too specific a concept to serve as a major heading and would do better as a sub-heading.
  3. Nomenclature: ???

Interstellar travel

[edit]
  1. Major Headings: Interstellar travel
  2. Remarks: Though different from the above, it's closely related to "Life and planet searches" (See Proxima Centauri). If we see a technological breakthrough where we can travel to close stars, it's not inconceivable that we will be able to travel to distant stars as well. But where we will travel to? Other stars? I don't think so. Not in a physical spaceship anyway. So the two headings "Interstellar Travel" and "Life and planet searches", though apparently different, are closely related. I don't see this topic showing up too often in star articles. As a "stand-alone" it works fine for me.
  3. Nomenclature: Interstellar travel

Future evolution

[edit]
  1. Major Headings: Future evolution - Evolution - Fate - Supernova
  2. Remarks: Once again, I can see how a section with this heading can work. It's distinct, although it could be argued that it would find a better place as a sub-heading under "Properties" or "Star System". With the star IK Pegasi the term "evolution" is used twice — as a heading and sub-heading. I'm not so sure that's a good use of nomenclature, as the word "evolution" tends to connote past, present and future in my mind. Consequently, the double usage seems a little fuzzy. As a sub-heading under Properties, more descriptive terminology would make a lot of sense so as to capture the reader's attention.
  3. Nomenclature: I tend to prefer the word "Fate" over "Future evolution" for a major heading It's simpler and captures the basic concept better. As a sub-heading under Properties, any distinctive phrase that relates specifically to the star itself would be best.

Current research

[edit]
  1. Major Headings: Current research - Current inquiry - Pivotal research - New findings - Current issues - Innovative theories - Cutting edge - Cutting edge research - Unresolved mysteries
  2. Remarks: I've not seen a section like this in a star article. I just toss it out as a possibility to consider. The article that comes closest is the Current issues section in the H II region article. In any event, what we know today about a star may well be ancient history in 100 years. And the fact is that research is going on today that could significantly alter that equation. So what this section would be dedicated to is that research. As I see it, the fundamental design of an encyclopedia is to provide rigorous, well written, well researched information for as wide a spectrum of the population as possible. The point has been made in other talk pages that the Astronomy section in Wikipedia is essentially for amateur astronomers. A section like this could potentially alter that if it were well written and extremely well referenced. Anyway, just a thought to see what everyone thinks.
  3. Nomenclature: I like each of the above headings for different reasons. "Current issues" puts the focus on debate. "Cutting edge", "Pivotal research", "Innovative theories" implies the most up-to-date inquiry that is going on.

Optional Sections

[edit]

In addition to the general Wikipedia guidelines provided at the Guide to layout and External links pages, I propose some additional ideas that I believe can significantly improve the quality of star articles.

See also

[edit]
  • Remarks: There are many top level articles that are specifically germane to each star article and should be included here. Also, the Lists of stars by constellation provides a phenomenal listing which I believe should be included in all "See Also" sections if only for the fact that it helps the reader get to any other star article quickly. The format that I'm using is:
as I believe that highlighting both the general list and the specific constellation list is helpful.

References

[edit]
  • Remarks: The primary reason given for referencing Wikipedia articles is to provide valuable source data for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" — in one word: credibility. But there is another reason which I believe is equally important and which various contributors have commented on. It's the ability for researchers — specifically high school and university students — to quickly access relevant source material. So the way I see it is that if we as editors are doing a lot of that work already in reading relevant source material, why not give readers the benefit of that effort. In light of this, I've noticed a simple trick that editors have used to enable readers to get to the actual source material with just 2 clicks. Here's an example from the Pleione article: [1]


  1. ^ McAlister, Harold A.; Hartkopf, William I.; Sowell, James R.; Dombrowski, Edmund G.; Franz, Otto G. (1989). "ICCD speckle observations of binary stars. IV - Measurements during 1986-1988 from the Kitt Peak 4 M telescope" (PDF). Astronomical Journal. 97: 510–531. Bibcode:1989AJ.....97..510M. doi:10.1086/115001. Retrieved 2010-06-13.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)


One click on the above title link "ICCD speckle observations of binary stars" and you're already at the source material. That's useful. And the more we as editors adopt this approach where it makes sense, the more valuable, it seems to me, these articles become.
Basic wiki code for the above reference
|author=McAlister, Harold A.; Hartkopf, William I.; Sowell, ...
|title=ICCD speckle observations of binary stars. IV - Measurements during ...
|journal=Astronomical Journal
|year=1989
|volume=97
|pages=510-531
|url=http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1989AJ.....97..510M&...
|format=PDF
|accessdate=2010-06-13
|bibcode=1989AJ.....97..510M
|doi=10.1086/115001
  • Design: In addition to the guidelines identified in the Citation styles of the Citing Sources page, the above coding yields some additional design approaches that I find useful for astronomy articles in general. In the above reference example, you'll notice that you actually have an opportunity to provide 3 url links (in red). The first occurs with the "url tag" itself, the 2nd with the "bibcode tag" and the third with the "doi tag". The bibcode tag takes you to the ADS page which provides an abstract and relevant source information. The doi tag will usually take you to the journal itself, which is helpful. And the url tag? Originally I was just copying the ADS url and placing it alongside the url tag. Well that wasn't too useful, I realized... two links going to the same webpage. Why not use the url tag to go directly to the article. In doing so, you also get a PDF logo in the reference itself — all of which triggers a "One click — Ah! Ha!" in the mind of the reader. As a result, I suggest that this methodology be used when appropriate to enhance the overall usability of the star articles. The only exception to this practice, I would offer, is if the pdf file takes a long time to download, thus tying up the user's processor too long. Otherwise, I think's is a useful tool that will only enhance Wikipedia's functionality long term.

Notes

[edit]
  • Remarks: The best use I've seen of this section in a star article is with IK Pegasi. Most of the time, however, I don't think that this is a necessary section for star articles as this information can be included in the "Reference" section. If there are a lot of formulas, as with the IK Pegasi article, then a Notes section like this makes sense.
[edit]
  • Remarks: There is not much to add here in addition to the information provided by the Wikipedia external links page except to say that I'm a big believer in referencing APOD pictures. I once read an article where the author made the point that everyone has in their genetic make-up what they jokingly referred to as an "astronomy gene" — the "Wow Factor!!!". It's one of the main reasons that people are attracted to astronomy and APOD has done a remarkable job in advancing that cause. Also, APOD has been in existence for roughly 15 years. That's 15 X 365 pictures — a lot! So as I see it, there's a real "win-win" with the Wikipedia "database" linking to those pictures, where appropriate, and for editors selecting those pictures that are particularly relevant to the theme of the article.
  • Formatting: In terms of formating these links, sometimes the actual title of the APOD pic is useful, sometimes not. It's really a judgment call. Generally, it's better to use a caption that references back to the Wikipedia article in question. For instance in APOD Pic#1 below, the caption "Orion, the giant huntsman, in pursuit of the Pleiades" is far more relevant to the Mythology section of the Pleione article than the actual title "Moonset Over Pleasant Bay". Other mistakes, in my opinion, can be seen with this example "Astronomy Picture of the Day - 2009 December 5". To me, the acronym APOD is sufficient, especially as an xref to APOD itself, and 2) the date is mostly irrelevant. What's relevant, is how the picture enhances the article. In terms of general formating, I've found the following helpful; it's simple and to the point:
  1. Orion, the giant huntsman, in pursuit of the Pleiades
  2. Himalayan Skyscape
  3. Pleiades and the Milky Way
  4. Pleiades and the Interstellar Medium

Other issues

[edit]

Long intros

[edit]
  • Remarks: Contributor 76.66.195.196 makes an interesting point regarding "Long Intros". My own view is that Intro sections should not be more than 20 lines or so, introducing the most notable features of the star that will be discussed in detail later in the article under the appropriate headings. Otherwise they become unwieldy, convey too much information, meander, and as such fail to make the appropriate connections. I don't know what other people's thoughts are on this, but my sense is that articles work better if the intro is an intro — that is to say it introduces the main topics and doesn't try to provide an exhaustive summary or overview.

Organization

[edit]
  • Remarks: I don't know if we want to standardize the sequence of main headings as well. It might be "too much structure" for some people's liking. But I'm very much on the same wavelength as Contributor 76.66.195.196 regarding their "short precis" comments. Most users, before they come to a page, already have an idea of what they are looking for. So in addition to a "short precis", clear nomenclature and sequence get users to where they want to go quickly, making Wikipedia that much more usable.
  • Sequence: If we do decide on some kind of sequence structure, I tend to like the sequence that is hinted at in the sub-section Main themes and sub-themes and echoed in the Sirius and Vega featured articles. The reasons would be as follows:
  1. Observational history: It provides a historical context, which is always useful before you dig into the specifics.
  2. Visibility: This is typically our most immediate experience... viewing the star.
  3. Properties: With most stars, "Properties" will be the main and most important section, so I think it comes third.
  4. Star system: In order of importance, Star system comes next, unless, as already noted above, there is so much information on a system that it makes more sense to scrap the "Properties" section altogether.
  5. Other main themes: All other main themes come here, in whatever sequence makes the most sense.
  6. Ethnological impact: Issues like etymology or mythology I've seen at the beginning of articles. But that doesn't make any sense to me as it is largely ancillary to the main purpose of the article. So as I see it, this section should probably be the last section before the Optional sections like "See Also".

Just my thoughts. Sadalsuud (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pleione (star)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This is a promising article, but there are several major issues that need to be addressed before receiving GA status.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Some of the prose is a bit awkward, particularly the prevalence very short sentences. I've fixed some of them, but it needs some careful copyediting (probably best to wait until the other issues are dealt with first)
    B. MoS compliance:
    I split the info on the name out of the lead, since it is not a summary of what is below. Feel free to change or add to the nascent section. It certainly needs a reference though! The lead could do with an extra paragraph or so to properly summarise the rest of the article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Sources appear to be reliable. A few personal websites of astronomers are less so, but none are for contentious statements and the sites in question seem to be written by experts. The Hersiod reference could do with a link to an online version.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    I've added {{cn}} tags where I think further references are required. Several of the sources are out of date, see below.
    C. No original research:
    No issues I can see.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Major areas are covered, but in some cases important facets are missing. See comments below for areas where I think this needs improving.
    B. Focused:
    The Mythology section rambles somewhat, and doesn't say much about the 'Ethnological impact' 'of this star. Most of the information in this section seems to belong in the Pleiades (star cluster) article, rather than here.
    Is it really necessary to have such a long description of an illustration in a work of fiction? I'm not sure this adds much to the article.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias I can see.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Seems fine.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    File:M45map.jpg is missing author information, and might not qualify as PD-NASA due to ESA and AURA authorship
    File:Achernar.jpg has no source information
    File:HD 113766 circumstellar disk.jpg is tagged as PD-NASA, but has the credit line 'NASA/JPL-Caltech/JHUAPL' ie. not just NASA
    Note all of these are images whose appropriateness is discussed below
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    The image in the infobox is not particularly clear, and has HST fields-of-view overlaid, for no apparent reason. Since this is such a commonly-imaged cluster, I'm sure you can find a blank image and add a big arrow or circle around Pleione.
    Using an illustration of Archenar on a page about Pleione is confusing. At the very least you should make it very obvious that the image does NOT show Pleione; even better would be to find a better illustration. The same issue exists with the picture of HD 113766.
    File:Taurus constellation map.png should be changed to File:Taurus constellation map.svg
    Information is important to the article must be given in the prose, not just the captions (both would also be fine).
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold for a week from 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Modest Genius talk 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • All magnitudes need to state which band they refer to (UBVRI etc or 'visual').
  • Is there really a circumstellar disk? My (admittedly non-specialist) understanding of Be stars was that the circumstellar material was ejected in all directions, though most strongly along the stellar equator. That's not the same thing as a disk though. EDIT: I should probably read some of the references from the Be star section, which might explain things.
  • The original Hipparcos reductions did indeed give a lower distance to the Pleiades, but this is now out of date after the second set of reductions in 2007. Unfortunately, the new and improved reduction did not resolve the differences. See [1]; this apparently needs to be updated on ALL of the articles on the Pleiades and Hipparcos, since they all seem to cite the out-of-date 1997 catalogue. van Leeuwen discusses the issue at some length in [2].
  • There are MANY more recent determinations of the spectral type than Pickering 1908 - indeed the article already mentions the existence of classifications beyond just 'B8'.
  • Listing mass, radius, luminosity etc as 'times solar' is cumbersome and annoying. I suggest using the L☉ etc and linking the first use to the relevant article (I've already done one of these as an example).
  • In the Be star section, what is meant by 'photospheric spectrum'? The emission certainly does not arise from the photosphere. The article says that Be stars are typically fast rotators, but provides no information on the rotation speed of Pleione. Ah that info is in the image caption. It should be moved into the text.
  • The article mentions that the disk inclination has changed due to precession, but then states that there are actually two disks, one at each angle. They can't both be correct, which is it? Or is the correct interpretation currently unknown?

OK I've made a start, but there are various things I still need to look at (image usage, references etc). I'll come back to this tomorrow or the next day. Modest Genius talk 23:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placed on hold for one week from 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Modest Genius talk 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of GA Review

[edit]

General observations

[edit]
  • I'll attempt to improve the article as best I can given my own limitations. Just so you know, I'm new to Wikipedia and this is the first GA review I've ever been involved in. Also, I have no formal background in physics or astronomy, just an interest in the subject. Some of the issues you raise may require the help of an expert.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a professional astronomer, though my expertise is in the interstellar medium not hot stars. I'm also probably quite a tough GA reviewer :p. I'm happy to help with any technical questions you have, although I should emphasise that I'm not an expert on stars! Modest Genius talk 22:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! I would very much appreciate the help.--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]

A. Prose quality

B. MoS compliance

Sounds sensible to me. Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. Lead Section

Accuracy and Verifiability

[edit]

A. References to sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary

Coverage

[edit]

A. Major aspects

B. Focused

  • I've changed the earlier heading "Ethnological impact" to "Ethnological influences". The latter phrase is broader, I think. From the above discussion, standardized nomenclature became a focus as most star articles deal largely with the same subject matter. The phraseology Etymology and cultural significance, as you can see from the above argument, didn't strike me as effective nomenclature. To me "Ethnological Influences" means all cultural influences, including our own—hence etymology, modern legacy etc. Given the similar etymology of Pleione and Pleiades, it's difficult to avoid discussing one without the other. I will attempt to make this section more concise.
  • The Fiction section was from an earlier contributor. Being new to Wikipedia, I kept it in its entirety. I'm open to any suggestion here from "Delete entirely" to "Reduce to one sentence or two" or "leave unchanged".--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One or two sentences seems the best option. Even better would be to identify any other mentions in fiction to broaden the section out, though that's easier said than done! Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some research and see if I can find anything else that could compliment this section. Another solution might be to expand the sub-section by calling it "Modern legacy" instead of "Fiction". I'll see what I can find and modify the section accordingly.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the section "Fiction" has been renamed to "Modern legacy" and condensed into a couple of sentences. I think it works. In the next few days, I'll see if there is any more "modern legacy" stuff that would be appropriate here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Modern legacy section is now complete. I tried to obtain the "Purple Pleione" picture from the Bonestell organization, but have not received a reply. Fat Jon's new album Hundred Eight Stars is the most direct "modern influence" of Pleione. Other ethnological influences have more to do with the myth Pleione than the actual star.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the star articles that have received FA status have an "Observational history" section. It's usually the first major section after the lead. Once all the other changes have been made, I'll do some research on this topic and see if such a section is warranted.
  • In terms of section sequence, I particularly like how the Sirius article flows and have replicated that sequence with the Betelgeuse article. I will use the same sequence here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

OK here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

[edit]

OK here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Images will be modified as follows:

Starbox


Visibility Section


Properties Section

  • File:Achernar.jpg I'll try to locate a better image, though I don't think there is one. My perception is the illustration was created to show its "shape" or otherwise highlight the concept of "oblateness" (See Be star). Achernar is just one example of this phenomenon. As a result, I thought the image would be useful for Pleione, particularly since Pleione rotates faster than Achernar—hence the caption distinguishing between the two stars. If this image doesn't work, or if you think it's overused, we'll have to find something else.Sadalsuud (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I finally found a pic that I think works and imported it into Commons. Its a pic of a classical Be star, Phi Persei. It was the best example I could find of an artist's impression of a gaseous disk. As a result, I changed the caption and imported the old information into the main body, reworking it a bit. I hope this works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Alpha Arae.jpg picture imported with references.


Ethnological influences Section


Captions

Other comments

[edit]

Magnitudes

Circumstellar disk

  • Various writers have been referring to the gaseous disk surrounding Be stars as a "decretion disk" and I've seen artist renderings of it on other webpages like this one. Seems like a disk to me although I'd be happy to defer to an expert on the subject.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm happy to believe that. Obviously it's me that was wrong! Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MParallax (Hipparcos)

  • I read the two links you provided. Unfortunately, the abstract does not provide the actual parallax value for Pleione and the article is not yet available for free in either pdf of html format. I did find a 2004 Hubble article however that argues for a 440ly estimate. So I've updated the article accordingly. If 440ly is in fact what Hipparcos 2007 reports as well, then many of the Kaler refs will have to be updated as well (i.e. luminosity) as they are based on 385ly. I suppose I can provide calculations in the notes section. Once I complete the research, I will include.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is where I forget not everyone knows the easy ways to find this sort of info! The 1997 data [3] are π=8.42±0.86mas, whilst the 2007 data [4] are π=8.54±0.31mas. In distance terms, that makes the 2007 determination 117±4pc. The 2009 van Leeuwen paper can be accessed for free at [5]; it's a pretty dense read even for an expert, but the relevant stuff is in section 6.3. The overall measurement for the whole cluster (using all the stars measured) is 120.2±1.9pc and I'm inclined to believe the Hipparcos result. Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Hipparcos estimate included. Thanks for all the help on this section. You'll notice that the new astrometric solution is included in the starbox, and the final Visibility paragraph updated accordingly. I've tried to respect Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines by presenting various viewpoints and not making any determination as to which distance estimate is the right one! I also noticed that the Pleiades article has sided with the 440ly estimate, while failing to include the 2009 paper that you have referenced. Consequently, I've tried to avoid any conflict with this "senior" article while simultaneously providing a balanced viewpoint. It might be worthwhile, once all the edits are completed here, to attempt a rewrite of the Pleiades distance section, as readers will likely crosslink to it. Your thoughts on this would be helpful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral classification

  • Will research and update.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I researched its current spectral classification. The most updated (B8IVpe), it seems, comes from Hoffleit 1991; so I included that ref, as well as a current ref that supports it. SIMBAD doesn't tell you where they get (B8IVev). I looked for it in different places but could not find it. Pickering 1908 shows B8p. There are quite a few other ones used (B7p), but I decided to simply stick with these two. I suspect some readers will wonder why SIMBAD shows a different classification.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SIMBAD takes the SpT from a combination of references. For this star, the individual measurements used and their bibcodes are:
 |ds/mss|           Spectral type            |     reference     |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
m|P /   |B7p                                 |1959ApJ...130..159O|
 |P /   |B8pvar                              |1956ApJ...123...54M|
 |P /   |B8pvar                              |1956ApJ...123..440S|
 |P /   |B8pvar                              |1953ApJ...118..370J|
 |P /   |B8pvar                              |1961MNRAS.123..521B|
 |  /   |B8nn                                |1972AJ.....77..750C|
The 5th (latest) edition of the Bright Star Catalogue gives B8Vpe, which is what I suggest you use (reference at [6], online query form at [7]). Modest Genius talk 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B8Vpe is what appears in the starbox. However, given that SIMBAD is a highly referenced source, both for this article and in general, I thought it would be useful to clarify any confusion in the Visibility section relating to SIMBAD's use of B8IVev. Does that work?--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar multiples

Photospheric spectrum?

Rotation speed

Disk inclination

Section status

[edit]

Lead

Visibility

Properties

Star system

Ethnological influences

  • OK. The whole section has been reworked and condensed pursuant to earlier conversation. If I can find relevant "Modern legacy" info, I will include. Otherwise I think this section is complete, subject to your review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few sentences that related to "Modern Legacy" to complete the section. The challenge here of course is that the legacy actually comes from the Greek myth, not necessarily the star itself. So I've given myself a wide berth in the interpretation of the word "legacy". The track from Fat Jon, however, is a direct reference to the star.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of images, I'm hoping to get a response from the Bonestell organization and be able to include the picture "Purple Pleione". If this does not happen, we could use the Hundred Eight Stars album cover. It qualifies, although the Purple Pleione pic is more relevant to an article on stars. I think it's best to wait and see. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section complete. Imported new pic.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

  • Complete, I think, depending on your approval.

Notes

  • Might need more work depending on future inclusions. I will let the Kaler refs stand "as is" given his estimated distance of 385ly. I have included a disclaimer in the Kaler ref putting the reader on notice that the "distance debate" could in fact impact other calculations.
  • Added a third note and reformatted the whole section so there is consistency in the "look and feel" of each.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

  • Complete, I think, depending on your approval.

Questions

[edit]
  • Double disk image There's a decent picture online that graphically illustrates on Pleione's "double disk" phenomenon. You can see it here: Double disk, though you'll need to scroll down a bit. I'm not crazy about the image quality and I have no idea how to deal with any copyright issues on something like this. Do you think I should attempt to include in the article?--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]
Thanks for those responses, looks like things are moving along nicely. I've added a couple of comments in your text above. Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second look

[edit]

Right, I've finally managed to have another look through and have fixed a few minor things myself. Referring back to the original review, I'm striking out things that have been sorted, and leaving comments on those that still need to be looked at:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This is a promising article, but there are several major issues that need to be addressed before receiving GA status.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Some of the prose is a bit awkward, particularly the prevalence very short sentences. I've fixed some of them, but it needs some careful copyediting (probably best to wait until the other issues are dealt with first)
It's still not brilliant, and I fixed several more poorly phrased sentences, but it's good enough for GA.
  1. B. MoS compliance:
    I split the info on the name out of the lead, since it is not a summary of what is below. Feel free to change or add to the nascent section. It certainly needs a reference though! The lead could do with an extra paragraph or so to properly summarise the rest of the article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Sources appear to be reliable. A few personal websites of astronomers are less so, but none are for contentious statements and the sites in question seem to be written by experts. The Hersiod reference could do with a link to an online version.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    I've added {{cn}} tags where I think further references are required. Several of the sources are out of date, see below.
There are now three {{cn}}s and one unreferenced section.
  1. C. No original research:
    No issues I can see.
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Major areas are covered, but in some cases important facets are missing. See comments below for areas where I think this needs improving.
    B. Focused:
    The Mythology section rambles somewhat, and doesn't say much about the 'Ethnological impact' 'of this star. Most of the information in this section seems to belong in the Pleiades (star cluster) article, rather than here.
    Is it really necessary to have such a long description of an illustration in a work of fiction? I'm not sure this adds much to the article.
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias I can see.
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Seems fine.
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    File:M45map.jpg is missing author information, and might not qualify as PD-NASA due to ESA and AURA authorship
    File:Achernar.jpg has no source information
    File:HD 113766 circumstellar disk.jpg is tagged as PD-NASA, but has the credit line 'NASA/JPL-Caltech/JHUAPL' ie. not just NASA
    Note all of these are images whose appropriateness is discussed below
File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg does not have a fair use rationale for use in this article.
  1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    The image in the infobox is not particularly clear, and has HST fields-of-view overlaid, for no apparent reason. Since this is such a commonly-imaged cluster, I'm sure you can find a blank image and add a big arrow or circle around Pleione.
    Using an illustration of Archenar on a page about Pleione is confusing. At the very least you should make it very obvious that the image does NOT show Pleione; even better would be to find a better illustration. The same issue exists with the picture of HD 113766.
    File:Taurus constellation map.png should be changed to File:Taurus constellation map.svg
    Information is important to the article must be given in the prose, not just the captions (both would also be fine).
  2. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold for a week from 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Modest Genius talk 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • All magnitudes need to state which band they refer to (UBVRI etc or 'visual').
Some of these are still missing e.g. in Note 1, just after being described as a Gamma Cass variable etc.
  • Is there really a circumstellar disk? My (admittedly non-specialist) understanding of Be stars was that the circumstellar material was ejected in all directions, though most strongly along the stellar equator. That's not the same thing as a disk though. EDIT: I should probably read some of the references from the Be star section, which might explain things.
  • The original Hipparcos reductions did indeed give a lower distance to the Pleiades, but this is now out of date after the second set of reductions in 2007. Unfortunately, the new and improved reduction did not resolve the differences. See [8]; this apparently needs to be updated on ALL of the articles on the Pleiades and Hipparcos, since they all seem to cite the out-of-date 1997 catalogue. van Leeuwen discusses the issue at some length in [9].
  • There are MANY more recent determinations of the spectral type than Pickering 1908 - indeed the article already mentions the existence of classifications beyond just 'B8'.
  • Listing mass, radius, luminosity etc as 'times solar' is cumbersome and annoying. I suggest using the L☉ etc and linking the first use to the relevant article (I've already done one of these as an example).
  • In the Be star section, what is meant by 'photospheric spectrum'? The emission certainly does not arise from the photosphere. The article says that Be stars are typically fast rotators, but provides no information on the rotation speed of Pleione. Ah that info is in the image caption. It should be moved into the text.
  • The article mentions that the disk inclination has changed due to precession, but then states that there are actually two disks, one at each angle. They can't both be correct, which is it? Or is the correct interpretation currently unknown?

Summary: Sort out the {{cn}}s, unreferenced section (can grab a ref from the main article there), File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg and the remaining magnitudes and you're done. Modest Genius talk 19:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to second look

[edit]

Made all the changes you recommended. I imported a sailing pic to replace the File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg, putting the latter where it belongs. The sailing pic fits well, I think, with both the mythology and etymology sections too. I studied each of your edits. Thanks. It's very helpful to have an astronomer like yourself looking over this information. One last thing: I stepped back and read the article from the beginning attempting to improve the prose where possible. Several sentences have changed. Hope it works better.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that looks good to me, I've listed the article as a GA. I'm supposed to encourage you to review an article from WP:GAN yourself, though that's entirely optional. Congratulations! Modest Genius talk 19:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your invaluable contribution to this whole process. Being new to Wikipedia, I had no idea I could even do something like this. I should also mention that User:Casliber was the one who originally suggested I submit this article for GA Review; without his insights and support, nothing would have happened here. I'll also look at WP:GAN, although my first commitment will be to focus on the Betelgeuse article and submit it for GA review. I'd certainly welcome your input there, if you can spare the time. Anyway, I hope to get that submitted in the next few days.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Pleione

[edit]

The Modern legacy sub-section refers to a 1955 Time-Life article with an illustration from Chesley Bonestell. Does anyone have access to that illustration, or possibly a photograph of the painting? Can we get it uploaded? The year 1955 was a long time ago. It would be great if we could include this illustration in the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pleione (star). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pleione_(star)&oldid=1200627332"