Talk:Auriga/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mwaahahaaaaa (rubs hands together in fiendish manner) - ok, you know the drill.....notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Auriga originated in Mesopotamia as a constellation called GAM, representing a scimitar or crook.~~ ~~- "originate" is not the word I'd use here. Maybe "Was first recorded/documented" or "The earliest depictions of the asterism were...." or something?~~

I've rewritten as "The first record of Auriga's stars was in Mesopotamia as a constellation called GAM, representing a scimitar or crook." Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...or approximate the modern constellation as a whole. not sure whether "approximate" is adverb, verb or adjective here....think it needs a reword....

Haha it was meant to be a verb, and it definitely should have been past tense. Fail. Rewritten to be more clear as "However, this may have represented just Capella (alpha Aurigae) or the modern constellation as a whole." Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~... all of the bright stars were included except for Beta Tauri/Gamma Aurigae..~~ - if we're doing prose, we should be able to reword this without the forward slash - I was thinking "... all of the bright stars were included except for the star traditionally known as Elnath and assigned to both Taurus and Auriga.." or something like it.

I like that, tweaked just a bit to "all of the bright stars were included except for Elnath, traditionally assigned to both Taurus and Auriga." Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd maybe rename the In non-Western astronomy to Non-Western representations (?)

I'm a bit meh on that actually. I'll be getting a hold of Julius D.W. Staal's "The New Patterns in the Sky", which has far more than either Olcott or Ridpath on the subject, and treats them mythologically and astronomically. It's not just that these peoples saw different patterns than the Greeks & Arabs, they had a whole different system of looking at the sky and they used it in different ways. I'd be okay with "Non-Western representations", but I think "Non-Western astronomy" is more comprehensive. I'll defer to you, just wanted to get my reasoning out there. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~foreign words such as "mankib dhu al-'inan" and "al-'Ayyuq" are by convention italicised without quotes (also contrasts well with meanings which are not italicised and in quotes)~~

Can you tell I haven't touched the MOS in years? Fixed as many as I could find. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~make sure you align/conform your names - e.g. stick to Aurigae rather than Aur, and you oscillate between (e.g.) Beta and β. I'd go for unabbreviated and spelt out respectively myself but YMMV.~~

I've spelled them all out, hope I didn't miss any. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"eclipsing variable" .....aaaaargh, it's a &)^$^*#@# binary! Do they really use the word "variable out there in astronomy-land...I thought this had been settled yonks ago.....(NB: You've also used both terms in the article so would be good to align...)

Agh, sorry this is so confusing! I think I ended up explaining it in that email about Corona Australis I sent you, but I did mess up a few in this article. And yeah, the word "variable" is the accepted term, I've got a book sitting on my desk called "Observing Variable Stars, Novae, and Supernovae". I think I've fixed all the double vs. binary stuff here; I hope it's clear that eclipsing variable = specific type of variable & specific type of binary. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some flipping betwixt binary and variable stars in the stars section

See above, sorry about the confusion! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE Aurigae is talked about twice - I'd combine in the former section and place discussion of the nebula there. Breaks up all the stuff on stars which can be a bit repetitive.

Wait, do you want the Flaming Star Nebula in the stars section or AE Aurigae out of the stars section? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the former - putting Flaming Star Nebula in the stars bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me; done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd unlink beta Aurigae in the Deep-sky objects section

Done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The association was discovered after the outburst in 1935 by Cuno Hoffmeister and Arthur Teichgraeber, though it was not confirmed until 1994. - this bit sits oddly with the following sentences (sorta spoils the plot...). Segment is a little bit repetitive and can be streamlined

I totally agree with the first bit and have implemented. I'm not really sure how to deal with the second part, can you point out a couple sentences you found repetitive? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking maybe the second para in the Meteor showers section would sit better after the first two sentences in para one, then moving the rest of para one to a "causes" para....? I can rejig if you like.

Mmm, I'm thinking I could organize each shower as "details of the shower" -> "history/discovery" -> wash, rinse, repeat. What do you think? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re In non-Western astronomy - you've added a bit on Capella alone...but this seems a bit arbitrary as there is loads on Capella alone so how does one judge criteria for including/excluding. I'd personally leave out material solely on Capella and maybe hunt up some other material which might mention several stars from Auriga - there must be other stuff....??

Yeah, there is some other stuff, it's just in a book that I will have access to starting...tomorrow. (If I can be arsed to drive to the library tomorrow and Tuesday). I had to special order the book from halfway across the state and it just got in. As long as you don't mind waiting a day - as soon as I get home I'll add it all in. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

body of text lookin' alright otherwise I think.....

~~(note to self and Keilana - lookin' at teh lede last...)~~ lede look ok for GA. Might need some panache for FAC....not sure yet....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, anything you'd suggest adding to the lead? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely mention the Haedi asterism in the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than leave Telescopium Herschelii as a seealso, I'd lift a few sentences from the daughter article and place a short segment in the history of this one. Psi Aurigae would get a part-mention in the history too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Telescopium Herschelii got a paragraph, but I couldn't find anything particularly reliable on Psi. Any thoughts? I also added a little more to the non-Western astronomy from Staal, which I finally got hold of. FWIW, I'll be making a pilgrimage to the Field Museum library for some obscure astronomical history/anthropology books before FAC; none of my sources are particularly forthcoming on Auriga's use in other astronomy systems. So that should take care of some of the non-western astronomy stuff by then. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Err, why is Psi Aurigae in the See also section......Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)~~ I see.....[reply]

notes by mr. rabbit:

Permanent link to Auriga (constellation)
- fn#13 doesn't link; mebbe should be 2009?
  - Yup, fixed.
- fn#18 doesn't link, either; mebbe should be 2006?
  - Fixed.
- fn#21 is vely brokie, but "startales" seems likely.
  - Yeah, I just suck at typing. :)

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So....in conclusion.........

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Some of the star bit is a bit listy, and I have done some prose massaging. It'd be good to do a bit more massaging to zhuzh up the prose but no biggie really....the only other minor issue is that the stars segment is really long, and whether it'd be worth some subheadings.

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall, a GA pass - and well on target for a crack at FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that the mythological and historical content are jumbled together with the scientific facts, so that the reader looking for astronomical information (i.e. probabably the vast majority) have to plough through too much stuff to find the pertinent info. It would be better to have all the scientific facts at the beginning, and then a separate section for ancient mythology nearer to the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.8.190 (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]