Talk:Eta Carinae/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I am. furhan. (talk · contribs) 20:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be a good article.

@I am. furhan.: it's supposed to be someone uninvolved with the article who reviews it, sorry. Thanks for the vote of confidence though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:, if you consider me uninvolved enough, I could take up the review in a week and a half or so if nobody else has done so by then. StringTheory11 (t • c) 12:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, from looking though the history, all you've done is some very minor formatting and cat fixing, so I'd consider you uninvolved WRT article content as a whole, so, yeah, if no-one has picked it up when you're free we'd be happy to have you look it over. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:, I'll start the review tomorrow! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! much appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:, @Lithopsian:; quite a good article overall; does a nice job of making a technical subject non-technical for the laypeople. There are only a few minor issues that need to be solved before GA.

I've done some minor copyedits; revert if you disagree with any.
What do you mean by "emit natural LASER light"? Do you mean the light is polarized like the light from some lasers is, or do you mean that the process is similar to how light from lasers is produced? I'm a little confused. I also don't see this mentioned anywhere in the body.

This is a throwaway factoid that I left in because some readers will no doubt have heard it mentioned. The light is actually from stimulated emission, with a (usually forbidden) meta-stable transition being pumped by another strong emission line. I can describe it (where?) or just remove it. Lithopsian (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about in the High energy radiation section? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a paragraph in the Spectrum section. It fits well there, although someone looking for laser information might have to search for it. Lithopsian (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Further sporadic observations over the next 70 years show that Eta Carinae was probably around or below 4th magnitude". Do you mean the 4th magnitude as in the magnitude 3.3 mentioned above, or do you mean the modern 4th magnitude?

I've re-read the reference and worded this more clearly. Lithopsian (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2010, astronomers Duane Hamacher and David Frew from Macquarie University in Sydney showed that...". I think this might go better in the Cultural Significance section.

I moved this from there as it seemed to slot nicely chronologically into the Brightness section, where it has more context than just being one of a bunch of factoids in a Cultural Significance section. However, the Cultural Significance section is a bit slim. Happy to move if everyone else thinks better in latter place Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been torn on this, but I've decided moving it out is better. That snippet adds nothing to a section called "Brightness", even though that Cultural Significance section is a bit of a loose end. I also want to edit it slightly to clarify that the Chinese names are "modern", 17th century, since Eta Carinae is not included in the original mansion-based constellations. Furhan has re-organised things though. I'm tempted to undo the whole lot, but that may be too harsh. The headings are no longer appropriate, there is some dubious poorly cited material, and some (accidental, I think from sandbox working) reverts of previous copyedits. I can add back some useful changes afterwards, for example some image shuffling. Lithopsian (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian:, I think undoing the whole edit is probably the best idea at this point. Furhan is definitely a good faith editor, but I'm not seeing any improvement from the edits and I'm seeing lots of deprovements. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undo and moved that block of text, plus minor edits to the Chinese asterisms paragraph. Lithopsian (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably good to define the acronyms EHF, SHF, and UHF.

Done. Lithopsian (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"looking distinctly orange within the dark "V" dust lane". I would think that Eta Carinae is currently much too dim to be able to see color with the naked eye; am I missing something.

Agreed, those details are not visible with the naked eye. I'll try to clarify the text. Lithopsian (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All queries have been addressed, and I now believe this meets the GA criteria. Pass. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]