Talk:Horologium (constellation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 18:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cas: is this ready for me to look at yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure take a look - navigating between accessability, accuracy and succinctness can be a challenge. How much to leave to bluelinks etc. So all input appreciated. One of the issues is that it is a summary-style article so detailed explanations could go way off topic. Specifically two points raised on the talk about how to shoehorn explanation of apparent vs absolute magnitude and how variations in accuracy are explained. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh joy. Let's see if I can provide anything useful. I have a, probably bad, habit of asking rhetorical questions when reviewing; assume that any question is asked from a hypothetical reader's perspective, rather than because I personally want to know.

• I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

they look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would delete "and one of several depicting scientific instruments" from the lead.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• "only one brighter than apparent (visual) magnitude 4". Suggest changing to 'only one brighter than an apparent magnitude of 4" '.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• "0.603% of the sky" Is that the whole sky or the visible sky?

the whole sky Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Link "chisel", "reticle", "dolphin", "swordfish", and "water snake".

err, water snake is a disambiguation page.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Picky-picky. It is probably not allowed, but the disambig page seems to give a perfectly good short description.

yeah I have linked now. agree it is not a strict disambiguation page as such Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Lacaille charted and designated 11 stars with the Bayer designations Alpha (α Hor) through to Lambda Horologii (λ Hor) in 1756" Consider 'In 1756 Lacaille charted and designated 11 major stars within the constellation, designating them Alpha (α Hor) through to Lambda Horologii (λ Hor).' or similar. (Just a suggestion.)

I tried this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Do we know when Baily "removed the designations ... "

Just been trying (unsuccessfully) to figure that out. He published a few different times in the first half of the 19th century. Source does not specifiy which. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Even 'mid-19th century'or early-19th century' would help.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Kappa Horologii, too, was unable to be verified" Was this also by Baily. Do we know what happened to the designation?

the name just falls out of use essentially Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Consider adding 'and the name fell out of use'.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Gould requires introducing. And, ideally, a date assigning to his work.

aded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Possibly a short final sentence to the paragraph stating how many designated stars the constellation now contains?

you don't think it comes across as too laboured/repetitive? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that it will coming across as "telling a story", which should help with flow and accessibility.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• "light-years distant from Earth" Suggest removing "distant".

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "it has a luminosity of 28 solar luminosities" Umm. Maybe 'it is 28 times brighter than the Sun'?

done (wasn't me what changed it...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "The estimated mass of the disks is (1.3±0.7)×10−3 times the mass of the Earth". Any chance of putting that in non-scientific terms, and footnoting the technical numbers?

converted to a percentage to make more readable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "with one of the widest ranges in brightness" Optional: → 'with one of the widest ranges in variation of brightness'.

Good point...but looks cumbersome...changed to "has one of the largest variations in brightness" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "observations of these two stars were urgently needed" "urgently" seems an odd word, and isn't really explained. How about 'reported that further observations of these two stars were needed as ... '

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "is 1,370 (± 70) light-years distant from Earth" "distant"?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "one of which lay in its circumstellar habitable zone" Optional: → delete "habitable", both here and in the lead.

Err, not sure I follow..circumstellar habitable zone has a very specific meaning. "circumstellar zone" is not an abbreviation for same Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good spot. That was me typing garbage. Sorry. I meant to suggest deleting "circumstellar". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Aaah ok, that makes sense. Done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Horologium is also home to many deep-sky objects; there are several globular clusters in the constellation." Suggest 'Horologium is also home to many deep-sky objects, including several globular clusters.' or similar

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "The globular cluster Arp-Madore 1 is found in the constellation, the most remotely known globular cluster in the Milky Way" Suggest 'The globular cluster Arp-Madore 1 is the most remotely known globular cluster in the Milky Way' I think readers will have picked up the common thread.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "in the process of a lengthy merger which has been going on for 400 million years" Optional: delete "lengthy".

done (lengthy pretty subjective here) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to come back at me over any of those which you don't like. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

almost all are valid and done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Cites 13, 17 should be in title case. Check for others.

there are a few....got em all I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• I note in passing that I consider Ridpath a RS.

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Cite 24 is set up as a Harv ref. It probably makes sense to change it to the same format as the others.

a relic from when more pages were used. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Cite 18 is missing title case; 21, 23 - there is a theme here.

aah, here is the problem - they are part of template:Cite Gaia DR2, which is in sentence case. There is a style issue over whether journal articles use sentence case or title case. Sometimes we've gone with the former, sometimes wth the latter. Loads of articles link to that template. So....either to go back and make all article titles sentence case, or change this template..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Digging into this, it is not as clear cut as I had thought, so fine. Leave it as is.

• I have tweaked cite 34.
• I have archived the web links. Revert if you don't like it.

thanks, that is much appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A fine, detailed, well written and impressively sourced article. Great work. I am more than happy to recognise it as meeting all of the GA criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed