Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Messier object/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was unsuccessful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 09:55:48 5 April 2019 (UTC) [1].

Messier object[edit]

Featured list candidates/Messier object/archive1

Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because is in pretty decent shape now and is a vital high level important article in astronomy. It was prepped up for FLC some years before by me but due to very unfortunate turn of events, it did't made it. So fingers crossed for now. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments (not a full review):

I don't see why this list is separate from Messier object itself- there appears to be about 2 paragraphs worth of text in that article that are not in this list, and it may not be useful text. I think that this list should be merged into Messier object; the result would just be this list with some extra text, so it could retain this nomination.
The lead starts out with numbering things as "Messier 1", transitions to "M 31" without explicitly stating that its common to abbreviate that way (maybe it's obvious enough you don't need to?), but then has e.g. "M108" (no space); it's unclear to me if this is a formatting mistake (space vs no space) or if either abbreviation is fine, but since the table has no space I think that it should be "M31" instead?
It's unclear what the distance column is sorting on when there's a range- some sort of average?
It's a little odd that the ascension column has both Xm Zs and also X.Zm? Feels like it should be one or the other
There's a disputed tag on M104
Citations have mixed date formats- you have both yyyy-mm-dd and Month dd, yyyy and dd Month yyyy

--Pres N 16:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The distance is in range values for certain objects when there is uncertainty in determining the exact distance and an average will not yield a correct value due to the shapes. The ascension column is represented in Hours minutes and seconds as per Sexagesimal system and is as per the normal representation of right ascension. Rest all is cleared up. Thank a lot for the quick review and waiting for the full one, if any. :-) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with a merger with Messier object, but keep it as a featured list nomination. There doesn't seem to be much sense in keeping both articles. Mattximus (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical. On it. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for such a merge, and the merge proposald should be discussed with WP:AST/WP:ASTRO. I have reverted this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be a third support for a merge: The main article is not at all long enough to justify a split, leaving the intro to this list quite redundant. This seems obvious and I don't quite understand Headbomb's revert; does s/he have a reason beyond just "no consensus"?

Nope. S/he stated no consensus as the only reason.

You can start a discussion at Talk:Messier object and ping the three of us for some support.

"kly" should have a tooltip key.

Done.

So the definition of Messier's Object is simply that it was described by Messier? So what is the astronomical relevance to this besides naming? Can you add a couple sentences about astronomical cataloguing and how this fits in?

Sprinkled some NASA wesite dust over it. Should be more clearer now.

Uh there's something off with the construction of that sentence. Good ref to add though. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please include a brief description of what each of the types of objects are (e.g. open vs. globular cluster and nebula vs. planetary nebula vs. supernova remnant)? Why is M1 Crab Nebula a remnant rather than a nebula? I just think a Featured List should be able to stand alone and not necessary rely on following links for understanding but this doesn't need to be too detailed.

I've thought about it but since the list is of 10 objects and every object is different sometimes. So adding a definition for each and every object would be overkill I think. If needed, a tooltip can be added but piping to the main article would be more concise. But if they are to be defined, it can be done in another section.

The star chart caption doesn't need a period.

Done.

Not necessarily something that needs to be added to the article but star chart doesn't address this, but what are the green line and the axes on the chart? I'm guessing the ecliptic, right ascension, and declination? Reywas92^Talk 06:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. Should they be mentioned as some key? Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you could put that in the caption if you want. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually its not marked in any star charts and is left like that. Certain star charts have ecliptic marked on the chart itself. But the ascension axes can be mentioned. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lists and editions section could use a few more citations but I don't see any other issues. Maybe move the Observations section before the list. Reywas92^Talk 07:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- I would place the whole of what is currently the third paragraph of the lead right after the first sentence and then have a paragraph break before "A preliminary version". You need to explain what is in the catalogue and its significance before you go into its history, not leave it right till the end.
- "ranging from star clusters, nebula and galaxies." - if you are going to use "ranging" then it has to range from something to something.
- "M 31" in para 2 - no other M references have a space.
- "Since catalog......" - catalog is spelt incorrectly (compared to the previous sentence). Also it should be the catalogue
- "Since catalog includes astronomical objects that can be observed from Earth’s Northern Hemisphere, deep-sky objects that can be viewed, a characteristic makes Messier objects extremely popular targets for amateur astronomers." - this is grammatical gibberish and I don't understand what it is trying to say at all.

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I only just noticed the disputed tag against M104 - that definitely needs to be resolved before the list could be promoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been resolved as a lenticular galaxy..just fixed it now. Thanks..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update the proposed merge has been complete. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now that the merger issue has been resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

"Catalogue des Nébuleuses et des Amas d'Étoiles": the quotation marks are probably not needed here.
Certain scattered instances of single quotation marks (e.g. Messier’s, Earth’s) should be replaced with apostrophes.
first appeared in Memoirs: a "the" should be required before "Memoirs".
Messier 102 could be linked in the lead. A brief explanation in the article of the designation scheme used would also be preferable.
star clusters, nebula to galaxies: needs an "and" in there; "nebula" should be in plural; terms could be wikilinked.
supernova remnant and spiral could also be linked to their respective articles.
English: Knowledge of Time: no need to specify the language, it's obvious that this is in English; the translated title should be enclosed in quotation marks.
Alt text must be provided for all images.
Also in terms of accessibility, the table headers should have defined row and column scopes.
The legend above the table could be formatted more neatly.
The width of the table probably shouldn't be limited here.
NGC/IC Number and Right Ascension: should be in sentence case (without capitalisation of second words).
If kly is already linked, an abbreviation is unnecessary.
The references in the first column would look better if placed in a new, separate column at the end of each row.
A second header (footer?) row at the bottom of the table is not required.
The sorting of the NGC/IC number and Declination columns needs to be checked and fixed, in order to sort properly.
Right ascension and declination: echoing PresN's comment above, decimal minutes could be converted to seconds. Also, a bit more consistency in the precision of both values could be better.
Some values appear to be incorrectly formatted: e.g. the declination of M39 (+48° 25′ ″) and the right ascension of M42 (05^h 35^m 17.3).
There could be a more thorough description of the star chart for its caption.
References: a consistent date format is in order.

So far, a generally well-written and adequately sourced article, but needs some work. Do let me know what you think. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. The moving of the references to another column seems to be redundant I presume as the scope headers for each row is the name of the Messier item number and hence its justified. Can be changed if you are not fine with it. thank you.

The references in the first column wouldn't stop me from supporting per se, but it would seem much neater if they were moved to a separate column, as is generally standard among featured lists. The NGC and declination sorting also haven't been fixed – ensure that the three-digit NGC designations are sorted at the beginning and that the declinations sort from negative to positive (these could be accomplished with data-sort-values, see WP:SORT). I've also taken the liberty to make some minor edits to fix punctuation and the like. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Consistent use of the word "catalogue" please, as based on Messier's work. So the tragic Wikidata infobox "catalog" -> "catalogue" and "cataloged" -> "catalogued" etc. Check throughout to ensure consistency. And "Messier Catalogue" or "Messier catalogue"??
"17 of the 45 objects being Messier's" -> the object's weren't Messier's, the discovery of the objects were down to Messier.
" range of astronomical objects, ranging from " no need for the second (and repetitive) "ranging"
Glyn Jones' addition is mentioned twice in the lead.
Why has Globular cluster suddenly become "Cluster, globular" in the table? Looks really weird.
Not sure about the utility of a sortable Picture column.
I (like nature abhors a vacuum) deplore empty cells, either en-dash or N/A or whatever.
NGC/IC col isn't sorting correctly, e.g. NGC 205 sorts between 1982 and 2068.
M104 has some markup visible.
"Messier Star Chart depicting " -> star chart.
See also has "List of Messier objects" which is actually this very article.
What makes http://www.messier.seds.org/ a reliable source? It looks like a personal blog.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald my comments have been here 10 days, and I see you haven't edited for almost a month, so unless you let me know otherwise, we'll close this nomination down in a few days time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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