Talk:Norma (constellation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 03:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

II'll be looking over this article over the next 36-48 hours. Courcelles (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm....@Courcelles:....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Cas, I had this right there on my to-do list. Someone that I'd know since I was 4 died Sunday night, and I've just been not up for really anything the last couple days. Today or tomorrow, I promise. Courcelles (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: - sorry to hear that/my condolences. Take your time as a couple of other things I am involved in are being reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spent a few hours running down what refs I could, and all look solid.

All three images are good.

Lede:

"one of twelve created in the 18th century" This might be an AmEng thing, but created feels like the wrong word here -- defined or something is what I would have said. Might be crazy here.

no no, I can see where you're coming from - changed to "drawn up" (also considered "established" or "defined") Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the constellation boasts eight" Again, just a strange sounding word choice, given stars can't brag. But tis lede is quite solid.

aww, just trying to make the prose a bit more engaging...still, changed "boasts" to more prosaic "contains" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History:

I'd translate "l’Equerre et la Regle", even though it is fairly obvious to those with rudimentary French.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later, but this article is solid. Courcelles (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abell 3627:

Abell 3627 is described as "one of the largest galaxy clusters known" in the lede, but later on it is described as "one of the most massive clusters known". Are size and mass equivalent in this case? VirtualDave (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was me being sloppy with concocting the lead - fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stars:

Is there a reason you have not linked to the List of stars in Norma?VirtualDave (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None at all - must have completely forgotten to add...added now. Thanks for the catch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy to help. Two minor things: "spectroscopic binary" isn't wikilinked, but there is a section here (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Binary_star#Spectroscopic_binaries) that may not have enough citations but does have a bit of info on spectroscopic binaries, so it might be worth linking to. The part on NGC 6067 says it is the most notable open cluster in Norma, but it doesn't say why it's notable - in fact, it says it is "indistinct as it lies in a star field". The fact that the cluster has a rich star field behind it and is therefore diminished in some way makes sense to me, but comments from people who have observed the cluster it sounds like it's still pretty impressive, so I wonder if it would be better to mention how impressive people find the cluster, or the fact that it has two Cepheids in it (Stephen James O'Meara says on page 294 of Deep Sky Companions: Southern Gems that the Cepheids are "What's important about NGC 6067".VirtualDave (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to Binary_star#Spectroscopic_binaries....it's a start.......can always try to improve the target article at some point... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I can't see that page on google books - nevermind, I rearranged so that facts speak for themselves... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been just terrible lately.

"easy optical double and unrelated in reality." Sounds awkward.

reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of references to spectral type, and zero explanation or even links for it?

linked now...an explanation on this page would be unwieldy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using a picture of Mz 3 might help, given the description of its appearance as "complex"

yeah...added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag ref 4 as self-published as well.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What did we decide last time about infobox references for things not mentioned in the article?

rejigged the declination and Right Ascension - should have remembered from last time. Most other material is cited in text and annoyingly sets of formatting errors if cites are plonked in infobox... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not something to fix, but I have no idea why List of stars in Norma doesn't just exist as a table in this article. Neither is that long, and the table can be worked to include all the info in the Stars section in sortable format. I get it for large constellations, but this one is so small... Courcelles (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

size is subjective...some folks would think this page is plenty big enough. The stars list could get alot longer too as there are a bunch of open clusters. There is a navigation template at the bottom that covers stars, clusters, galaxies etc. too, don't forget Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this one doesn't cover anything besides stars yet, as I haven't gotten around to updating it yet to include them. I'll put all FA and GA constellation navboxes on my high-priority list for the updates, though, and since I should have plenty of free time tomorrow, I'll try to remember to fix it then. I think currently they're only finished through Cygnus, if I'm remembering right. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great - just trying to get a few things done. Will trade you by doing some more CarlosComb...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...And done! StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After another read,I'm happy, this is a great article. My life has been a absolute mess lately, and these's been ArbCom messes that suck up literally all my free time. Sorry for that. Courcelles (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Thanks! Much appreciated. I suspect things might be a bit hairy at present. My advice - take time out to do something relaxing to recharge the batteries.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

Seriously guys how is this a featured article? It's not even locked and the info box code is just sitting there at the top of the page, probably an unclosed bracket or something. 81.131.1.38 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't they unlock FAs while they get the front page treatment? As for the infobox, you may have been viewing it following a vandalism. Praemonitus (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]