Talk:Rigel/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

errr....@The Rambling Man:...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - as noted on my talk page, I am in no way an expert here, so I'm just adding novice comments, many of which I'm sure will be of little use!

My replies inline in green, hopefully not too confusing. Lithopsian (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"a bright star" - is that a technical term?

That's not a technical term. Its an entirely relative description. However, Rigel is by almost any definition a bright star, one of the brightest in the sky and one of the most luminous. Perhaps a less ambiguous wording can be found.

Interesting problem - I think most sources would call it a "bright star" and I have often seen it described as such but agree the term could be interpreted as waffly. We could actually leave "bright" out (and I am taking it out) as two sentences later we're talking about it being the brightest star in Orion and 7th brightest in the sky. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with leaving "bright" out. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to how the lead says it's a "star" and then that it's a "star system of at least four stars"

A tricky one! Historically and popularly, a "star" is a point of light in the sky. Ancient peoples, and really most people even today, have no clue that it could a close grouping of several hot balls of plasma. Doubly-tricky when all but one of the individual stars would be invisible to the naked eye even without the brightest one dominating. Triply-tricky that the IAU has decided that proper names (ie. Rigel) only apply to the brightest of those stars even when it has historically been used for several or all of a group. Again, possibly a wording can be found that expresses all this concisely enough.

This still seems to be unresolved. I admit it's probably not a problem for those in the know, but to me it still strikes odd that there's an overt discrepancy from one para to the next... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss what to do with this one. There is an inherent contradiction; there is a nod to it in the lead starting the paragraph with "although". Usage is dependant on context: some people call a dot in the sky Rigel; others encompass the whole star system, hence Rigel B, etc.; others restrict the proper name to only the single dominant star in the system. Without waxing lyrical it would be hard to explain all that explicitly, plus hard-liners might argue (and have argued in the past) for a strict definition based on just one of those usages. I'm not keen on the lead sentence saying that Rigel means different things to different people - I think "star" covers it all, just about. Then I'd rather acknowledge the inconsistent usage in the body without writing a book about what "star" means to different people. Not sure what form of words will do this adequately though, or where those words need to be more clear. Lithopsian (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quandary - I need some undisturbed time today to come up with some ideas.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right as an update I have tried this, where I have put all properties together. It reads a bit oddly but has all facts together starting with definition - which is applied to both the system and its brightest member and clarifying from the get-go that it is a single point of light to the naked eye. How does that read? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"400 times fainter " I would always see this from the other way, i.e. 1/400 as bright.

Could be. What do others think?

I don't have a strong opinion on this "400 times fainter" runs off the tongue more easily for me, but I tried this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" 3 to 4 times as" three-to-four times as...

The general Wikipedia rule is words for small numbers., so this should probably change.

I spelled them out - there is "18 to 24 times as massive.." in hte previous para but not right next to it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You link "naked eye" but not light year (nor parsec which is what I assume pc means?)

It was linked in the starbox but not at its first occurrence in the lead, or anywhere else in the article. Fixed.

You use " for arc second on its first use and "arc minute" on its first use. I'd use "arc second" the first time too, it may be mine eyes, but I can hardly see that symbol nor that it's a wikilink.

Fixed.

"β Orionis " etc is non italics in the lead and italics in the text, any reason for the difference in format?

There was only one instance of this being italicised. I removed it. I note that some star articles are inconsistent on this (e.g. Betelgeuse). Attic Salt (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could link "designated by Bayer" as it appears before "Bayer designation" yet mean the same thing.

Perhaps even link just the word designation at its first occurrence in that paragraph?

"literature,[29][15][12] " not essential but I rarely (if ever) see good/featured material whose refs are out of numerical order.

This and one other instance fixed.

"9 PM" normally a non-breaking space and either pm or p.m.

lowercased it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

northern and southern hemispheres are normally capitalised.

I changed it. Looks slightly odd to me though.

" area within 8° of" latitude could be explicitly stated?"

Aah, that would be the 82nd parallel north, rejigged so I could link directly. And linked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hipparcos" should be in italics as the name of a vessel.

I did this for the mention of the satellite, but not for other mentions which are more a reference to the data from the satellite. Attic Salt (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" 2007 Hipparcos reduction" overlinked. And italics again if you agree.

I removed a redundant link. Attic Salt (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"5°–long" why an en-dash when a hyphen typically works here?

ndash by bot?? changed to hyphen Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

" angle of 1°[8] " missing a full stop?

Done. Attic Salt (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A spectroscopic companion.." I tend to try to avoid single sentence paragraphs.

Yes, but in this case it doesn't seem to fit well in any other paragraph.

I sort of agree, but could make a case for it in previous para on possible companions etc. so tacked it on end there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hertzsprung–Russell diagram.[68][5]" ref order again.

Done

"Hertzsprung-Russell diagram" should be an en-dash. And I imagine "top center" should be hyphenated.

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"e Alfonsine Tables of" our article doesn't capitalise table and has the whole term in italics (for some reason).

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to relink Orion or link Australia.

Done. Link was piped to something that could be confusing anyway. The 2nd Orion link was to a different article, tried to make that more clear.

Nor a capitalised Kangaroo.

Is that link completely inappropriate? The reference appears to be to some sort of mythological creature rather than an actual kagaroo?

"Two US Navy ships have borne ..." no ref?

I added cites to sources for this. Attic Salt (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't SSM-N-6 Rigel actually SSM-N-6 Rigel per normal boat name convention?

This is the name of missile, not a boat, and the wikipage on that missile does not use italics. Attic Salt (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" elevation 1,910 m" convert.

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent with formats for accessdate and publication date.

okay, gone through the refs to order all their formatting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check refs for completeness, e.g. ref 37 doesn't have any publisher/work information.

Lithopsian, Though this source [37] might be reliable, it would be good to have a more typical journal or book source.

I replaced it with a book.

That's my inane ramblings for a first pass. Hope some help. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is all very valuable. We've all stared at this article so long we desperately needed and outsider and/or neophyte to look at it to see if it made sense. Have alook at the talk page archives...for a laugh (or cry). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I'm trying to fit in as much diverse reviewing as I can while I'm in lockdown and in between homeschooling and looking for toilet paper. I'll take another pass later if I can. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sigh...homeschooling...that has been....doing my goddamn head in. we get our loo paper delivered so have plenty, but are low on pasta, UHT milk and some other stuff....sigh.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, apologies for the delay, I'm back at this later, it's top of my priority list. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments okay, sorry for the delay once again, I got selfish and started doing my own articles!!

Duplicate links, there are several. Either use the duplicate links tool or I can list them out.

got most of them. others need some fiddlig with some templates. Too tired now. Will get onto it later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got the rest. Someone should maybe scan through my edits. They were mostly unit symbols and I have tended to deliberately overlink these in long articles so that they are linked once in each section where they are important (plus infoboxes, captions, etc.) since they are useful without being too distracting. Lithopsian (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General question: while this is an astronomical article, do we still need to consider conversion to Imperial units where applicable, e.g. 10 km/s into miles/sec?

Generally no, unless a terrestrial measure Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

0.124" vs 0.1″, consistent format (i.e. curly or not) for the arc munutes.

Those are arc-seconds :) I think I've fixed them all, based on the format used in the val template. Lithopsian (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments inline above. Close now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, namely Casliber, Attic Salt and Lithopsian. Your work here is much appreciated, thanks for being patient with a luddite like me, and I am happy to approve this to GA. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: thanks for being thorough and unafraid to call out stuff that doesn't make sense/isnt' clear etc.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]