Wikipedia:Peer review/Triangulum Australe/archive1

Triangulum Australe

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've got it passed to GA level and am musing on FAC at some point, but I am still finding my feet with Astronomy articles. All input appreciated.

Thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments (in no particular order)

The image in the infobox is too small to be of any use

yerp, will have to look into an alternative Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"created in the sixteenth century" - "first named"? I don't think the advancements of the Renaissance quite stretched to star manufacture

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of overlinking/underlinking? Mundus Novus would be a good red link but unfortunately it's been redirected to New World
"and round out the triangle" - I love those round triangles (though square hexagons are my favourite paradoxical shape)

oops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You introduce "spectral class" without a link and then switch to "stellar classification" which is linked.

oops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

light-year and parsec are linked several times which doesn't help the sea of blue effect (do we care about parsecs anyway? You use only light-years later in the article)
"Nicolas Louis de Lacaille gave twelve stars Bayer designations of Alpha through to Lambda" - he did a lot more than that; put "in this constellation" somewhere in there maybe.

rejigged order, but yeah, done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"absolute magnitude" is linkable

oops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"yet in reality is a much more powerful star that lies further away" - imprecise...

made more exact Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and followed in the next paragraph by "yet is actually" - vary the sentence structure
"Its notable features include..." - the whole section is titled "Notable features" so either everything up to this point has been introduction or this is restating the obvious

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the end of the "Notable features" section, I'm still fairly unclear on the number of stars in the constellation - the link to List of stars in Triangulum Australe, the template "Stars of Triangulum Australe" and the infobox only help to muddy the waters further as none of them agree.

yeah this is a bit of a problem. There are stars with Bayer designations (Greek letters), but then there are others. It does assume a certain similiarity with the topic. I will think on how to fix. Maybe a line on what a Bayer designation is? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think having the "History" section before the "Notable Features" would make better sense, especially as you have some history at the beginning of the "Notable Features" section

yeah, reads better I think now Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Italian navigator Amerigo Vespucci explored the Americas..." - somewhat anachronistic. Perhaps "explored the New World"

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He grew to know the stars in the southern celestial hemisphere and made a catalogue for his patron king Manuel I of Portugal, which is now lost. I" - presumably that is cited from the same book as at the end of the next sentence, but I could see a "citation needed" tag appearing on that at FAC

Aha! I tucked a commented out "cites previous three sentences" there for the eyes of anyone opening it up to slap a ^{[citation needed]} tag there.... 14:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Cunning. Yomangani ^talk 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"32½-cm" - the metric system wouldn't be around for another 200 years
"German poet and author Philippus Caesius saw the three main stars as representing the Three Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (with Atria as Abraham).[33]" - that's a bit out of place with the rest of the section and the article, Why don't you create a section called "In Popular Culture" (with that capitalization) and add it there?

Hmmm, musing on this one, but it's gonna be an awfully small section. Pity the constellation ain't been featured on something else to buff it.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was meant to be sarcastic. I guess it was too deadpan...unless you are playing along...in which case I've fallen for it. Anyway, don't do that, just try and connect it back into the various depictions/namings a little more. Yomangani ^talk 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section doesn't tell us when it was named "Triangulum Australe". The implication is that it was named by Lacaille in 1756 but this isn't explicit.

Verily 'twas Bayer. Now added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad overall though, it's not too stodgy considering its subject matter. Yomangani ^talk 12:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]