Talk:Aries (constellation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin copyediting as I go, and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~It would be nice if both lead paras didn't start with "Aries....", but nothing is jumping out at me as an alternative right now.~~

Reworded the second to "Though it specifically came to represent the ram whose fleece became the Golden Fleece in Ancient Greece, it had represented a ram since late Babylonian times."

~~I'd link the bright stars and meteor showers in the lead.~~

Done, in conjunction with the below.

~~Actually, I'd list things out in the lead a bit - something like, "not a bright constellation with only one second (alpha) and one third magnitude (beta) star...."~~

I added to it a bit, how does it look now?

Aries was originally defined in ancient texts as a specific pattern of stars... - where this is, I think this sentence is possibly reiterating the preceding state of affairs a bit too much....?

Hrm, well, Andromeda got some comments from confused people who thought it was just a pattern of stars and didn't understand the borders thing; they requested specific glossing there and I supposed the same confusion might apply here. Would a move of that clause to the very beginning of the section help, plus a rewrite of the sentence to something like "Aries is now recognized as an official constellation by the IAU, albeit as a specific..."?

Yeah that might work....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? I think it works... Keilana|</nowiki[[Utalk:Keilana|Parlez ici]]</ ::<s>I'd move the short sentence on beta being A5 to past its mention of being a spectroscopic binary and mention the spectrum of the second star.</s> :::I can't find the spectral class on the second star unless I'm being a complete knucklehead with SIMBAD. I did move the sentence though. ::::I think sometimes figuring out the second spectrum is tricky, but I'm a neophyte in these things....[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC) ::'' <s>The Daytime Arietid meteor shower is the strongest meteor showers that occurs during the day and lasts from May 22 to June 2.'' - singular/plural issue here.</s> :::Wow, grammar fail. Fixed! ::<s>I'd move the oneliner on hebrew and syrian depictions in ''In non-Western astronomy'' up into the first section as it looks odd where it is.</s> :::I'm a little iffy on that, because I feel that ''History and mythology'' should follow the main stream of the constellation's history. And it was already identified as a ram in Babylon and Greece contemporaneously to its Hebrew and Syrian identification, so I'd be a little hesitant to move an identification that didn't take hold internationally into the main history section. If you feel it's necessary, I'll of course defer to your judgment, just wanted to clarify my original reasoning. :) ::::No no, that's cool. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 14:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Otherwise looking not too bad. More later. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) :Thanks for the review so far! I appreciate it - you're a good reviewer. [[User:Keilana|Keilana]]<nowiki>|^{Parlez ici} 02:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More - I'd mention Teegarden's star somewhere definitely, and am curious about Category:Aries_(constellation) - Arp 276 and Segue 2 (dwarf galaxy) looked interesting too....maybe prioritise some other really unusual things?Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I really should remember to check my watchlist. I wrote a little paragraph on Teegarden's star and added Segue 2 and Arp 276; I also stuck in a paragraph about all the stars with planetary systems that were notable enough for an article. How does that look? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better....I take it this will go to FAC so am giving it as hefty a shove as possible....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this will be at FAC in a week or so. Need to write more on meteor showers, but I think it's closeish. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idea - the Stars might work better as follows: How do you think this looks? Feel free to revert if you think it is not an improvement. Tried to make it less listy and group stars into bright stars, doubles, variables and miscelllaneous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot! Aries may be my new constellation article prototype. :) Is there anything else you think could do with fixing? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it passes GA criteria now - I am musing on the Deep-sky objects section, but that is over and above. Will play with it later tonight Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: