Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/61 Cygni/archive1
61 Cygni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. The article seems to meet all the criteria for a FA and I have made still more updation and minor fixes so as to meet the criteria. The article is currently a GA and the article have undergone major expansion after that. Top editors aren't active now and RJHall retired a little while ago. Still, I have done much to make it meet to the criteria. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Review – The article is in decent shape, although perhaps a little short. Here are a few observations:
- The 'absolute magnitude' values in the infobox need a proper citation; just computing them isn't enough. (Kervella et al. (2008) give the absolute bolometric magnitudes for the two stars; it might be better to use that field instead.)
- Done. A better cite of stellar-database is now used. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, well you've replaced what was a perfectly suitable citation for the apparent magnitude with a different citation. The absolute magnitude values are not cited. :-) I would again suggest just using the Kervalla et al. (2008) citation and the absolute bolometric magnitude field of the template. Praemonitus (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I stick on simbad..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, that reference does not supply an absolute magnitude. Praemonitus (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I stick on simbad..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done. A better cite of stellar-database is now used. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The article needs to explain the meaning of the name '61 Cygni'. For example, where did it originate?
The meaning of 'K5 V' and 'K7 V' needs to be clarified, as the reader might not be familiar with the MK notation and its connection to the statement "K class (orange) main sequence stars".
- Done. Piped both to K-type main-sequence star. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The Observation history section should use consistent units for the parallax and be consistent about labeling parallax measurements.
- Done. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- When you convert arc seconds to mas (milli-arcseconds), you also need to multiply the values by x1000. Praemonitus (talk)
- Done. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The final two sentences of the Observation history section needs a citation.
- Added two reliable cites. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- References need to be properly formatted in a manner consistent with the other citations. Praemonitus (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Added two reliable cites. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- The term 'old-disk stars' needs to be explained.
- Done. Piped to Circumstellar disk -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well no, that's not what 'old-disk star' means. It's a type of galactic component. Praemonitus (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Piped it again..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- It means it is a star belonging to the old disk population; not an old star belonging to the galactic disk.[1] This should probably be covered on the Milky Way article. Praemonitus (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Piped it again..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Piped to Circumstellar disk -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could use this reference to note whether an infrared excess has (or has not) been found.
- Couldn't find the related star. Is it necessary to include that too? Since you said 'perhaps'.... -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies, I listed the wrong volume: A near-infrared interferometric survey of debris-disc stars. III. First statistics based on 42 stars observed with CHARA/FLUOR. The results are summarized on p. 15. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Couldn't find the related star. Is it necessary to include that too? Since you said 'perhaps'.... -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- You could also use Table 7 in this reference to speak to the stellar habitable zones around the two stars.
- Similarly, here too, couldn't find the star. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is listed with the designation "GJ 820". Praemonitus (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Still couldn't get it. Please link it to the page itself...-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Similarly, here too, couldn't find the star. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- ST11
- The entire "Distance" section is a huge eyesore and frankly unimportant. Readers aren't going to care about every single distance estimate published, and are only going to care about the most accurate one, which is already present in the infobox. I'd remove the whole section.
- I could see that each values makes the approximation more clear and shows the readers how they have tried to get the approximation of distance through parallax method. The whole section, similar to that of pi can make it count. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the table helps show how the parallax method works. There's two things wrong with that: I don't see how the table conveys that at all, and such info would not be appropriate for this article but rather for the parallax article. The approximations of pi is different, since the increasing approximations of pi has been a subject of intense study itself, and well, pi is much more important to everyday life than this single star. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Both stars in the system are rather typical variable stars (BY Dra and flare). However, I'm not seeing magnitude ranges anywhere in this article for either star, which are absolutely necessary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Overall though, this article is pretty good. It is admittedly somewhat short, but that's not a problem; it's better to have only clear, concise, and relevant information and it covers its topic well.