Talk:Telescopium/GA1

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Gilderien in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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


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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    • "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)Reply
    • "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)Reply
yeah...they look ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • "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 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Good point/removed - forgot about Moving Groups Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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

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)Reply
  • 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)Reply

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)Reply