Talk:Telescopium

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 01:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading through it. One thing that jumped out at me is the note - "stars within a few degrees of the horizon are to all intents and purposes unobservable" - 11 degrees is quite a substantial portion which are implied not visible, should a quantifier regarding latitudes further north be added? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have had a tough time looking for sources discussing this aspect much on many stars/constellations - I guess most of us are city-dwellers with buildings and trees and crap significantly obfuscating the horizon, let alone extinction (and telescopium is pretty faint). If I can see anything else sourceable I will add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And a bit more of a review...

• Images - the two that are currently there are nice and also appropriately licensed - it might be nice to have one or two in the stars and deep sky objects sections, which are currently looking a bit bare.

yeah...trying to find appropriately licenced images is...challenging...will keep looking.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Copyright - I did a page scan and could not find evidence of plagiarism or copyright infringement. I shall examine the sources in more detail later.
• Prose - overall the style is fine, but I had a few minor issues:
  • "astronomer and student of the southern skies" - is this usage of the word "student" correct? Would "observer" or documentor work better?

yeah, bit flowery - I rejigged the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• • "The system is complex, as has a common proper motion" - is this meant to be and?

I meant "as it also has" - as it the two are travelling with a third star Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• • "allowing the margin of error in their distances just overlaps," is confusing, if I am understanding it right would something like "however, the uncertainty in their distances overlap, so blah blah" work?

exactly - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• • I made some minor copy-edits, which you can revert and discuss if you so wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilderien (talk • contribs) 03:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

yeah...they look ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• • "common proper motion with (and is hence gravitationally bound to)" - from my own knowledge, and having examined the source, I'm not sure the "hence" should be there - objects can share common proper motion without being part of the same system). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilderien (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point/removed - forgot about Moving Groups Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• • "result of a merger between a helium- and carbon-oxygen white dwarf" - this plural, or not, is I think potentially confusing. Would it be correct to have an "a" before the word carbon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilderien (talk • contribs) 03:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I added 'a' - I think it's ok without it but have been pinged by folks before for leaving out too many words like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

More to come --Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 21:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So... I am now confident that it meets:

• 1 a) and b)
• 2 a) (in a nice way as well, although it might be nice to condense the citations into 2 columns), b) and c)

tweaked thusly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• 3 - both are dealt with in an acceptable manner
• 4 as it is neutral (not sure how it could not be)
• 5 as it is stable
• 6 - it contains some images of appropriate properties. The article NGC 6845 however does have an image.

--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 21:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it meets all the criteria, I have no choice but to pass it as a Good Article ;) Congratulations. I shall do the honours.--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 21:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

@Casliber: please accept my apologies for not reading through the article in time for the Wikipedia:Peer review/Telescopium/archive1. I've put some suggestions below; several of the comments I made about Pictor would also apply, but I won't repeat those here.

• I wouldn't refer to "HR 6875" as a name - rather, it's a catalogue number.

good point - tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• With Delta Telescopii, if you're saying "However, the uncertainties in their distances just overlap", then it would be better to give the distances and their uncertainties, along with the probability that they are co-located. I would be rather surprised if it wasn't possible to tell if they were a binary system or not nowadays, TBH.

trying to find some more on this system.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

update - Van Leeuwen pretty much indicates they are an optical double - the distances don't overlap... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• It would be good to say the distance between the closest and furthest star in the constellation.

am a bit lost about what you mean by the "distance between the closest and furthest star in the constellation"

• It would be good to add more pictures to the article. Surely there is NASA imagery of the NGC objects at least.

Any ideas would be appreciated - I searched though APOD to no avail....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• For some reason, the article's appearing as a FA rather than a GA in the interlanguage links. I'm not sure why that's happening...

Hope that helps! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated/thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Vague

"Telescopium was later much reduced in size by Francis Baily and Benjamin Gould." For a non-aficionado on astronomy, this comes rather vague. Please clarify. ALso, the word created was changed to named. The constellation (or pattern) already existed; it was only a matter of identifying and naming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.75.38 (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Origins of Telescopium word

"Its name is a Latinized form of the Greek word for telescope." This strikes me as a bit confusing. The word "telescopium" was coined from Greek roots but was the original word ever only used in Greek before it spread to other languages or was it coined from Greek words but used in Latin, the then language of scholarship, from the first. That would make it a Latin word not a Greek word. Dabbler (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question - "telescope" is described as coming from the Greek words - words like this are often described as Latinised Greek. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As a comparison, the word telephone also is derived from the Greek words but was first invented by a Frenchman for a different sort of instrument in 1828. I have seen it described as from the French word "1835, "system for conveying words over distance by musical notes" (devised in 1828 by French composer Jean-François Sudré (1787-1862); each tone played over several octaves represented a letter of the alphabet), from French téléphone". Telegraph is also said to come from the French word for the semaphore type system invented in the late 18th century, even though it too has Greek roots. Dabbler (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this right?

• Otero, Sebastian Alberto (11 November 2011). "RX Telescopii". AAVSO Website. American Association of Variable Star Observers. Retrieved 26 June 2014.
• Watson, Christopher (3 May 2013). "NSV 12783". AAVSO Website. American Association of Variable Star Observers. Retrieved 2 July 2014.

Two source with exactly the same url, is this right?--Jarodalien (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Look like the latter was wrong, I try to search "NSV 12783", is this link right? Perhaps author etc. also needs to change?--Jarodalien (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted! And now fixed. Thanks for being thorough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)