The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:36, 27 September 2012 [1].

---

Corona Australis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Corona Australis/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) & Keilana (talk · contribs)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel it is of equal standard to other constellation Featured Articles and can't see anything else to improve. My only niggle is whether to devote more space (and expand upon) the material about the molecular cloud. Otherwise we're pretty happy...let us know what else we can do...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NB: This is a wikicup nomination. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• ((page needed)) tags need to be dealt with
  • Got all of those. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are some pages hyperlinked and others not, even within the same book?
  • I'm assuming this is because some were accessed via the online edition and others were accessed via a library. Is this a problem? I can probably hunt down most of the physical copies if I need to.

I've never figured out how to hyperlink to more than one page in a google book. I figure linking to one and then letting the reader find the other pages is better than linking to none at all Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesn't offer preview for all books, or for all the pages of a book. The mechanism in place in this article allows as many links to specific pages as you want, albeit at the cost of the refs being more complicated. The reason the links are on the specific page numbers (ass opposed to in the {cite book}) is to allow unlimited page linking within a book. The urls in the biblio are to the whole books, not specific page numbers because a) there's only one url per {cite book}, and b) a reader following a fn-link for p. 123 to the biblio might well get then taken to a preview of p. 456. And snippet views are even messier because the urls get huge.

gbook links are capricious. They come and go, availability varies by region. Far too many editors are really sourcing to google books, not the actual books. I'd cut all the page specific links and let them find what they may via the ISBN link or at most a gbook link to the whole book. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, I find a link to any page more helpful than none at all, but we can go with numbers consensus on this page Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's the foolish consistency mindset seeking links for all-or-none, ignoring the realities of Google's practises. Gets those very impotent italics right, though. The FAC process frequently misses the forest for teh little saplings. Anyway, the mechanism is on offer in this article to allow linking to as many specific pages within a specific work, if desired. I restructured them, but they were extant for the most part, and I expect more could be added, Google willing. Take it or leave it; it's messy to maintain and most editors are not going to be able to cope with it. If cut, the ((refn)) linking to ((harvnb)) in the ((refs)) would become standard inline ((sfn)) calls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books; if so, check NY vs NYC
• Springer or Springer New York?
  • I have seen both given in the books; I'm not sure if there's a difference. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Bakich 2010: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publisher was given as "Springer Science+Business Media". Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by Duplicate detector tool found the following repeated in main text (excluding lead and infoboxes) star forming region, Telescopium, Sagittarius and Theta Coronae Australis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got 'em all Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regarding magnitude facts:

• "Southeast of Theta and southwest of Eta lies the open cluster ESO 281-SC24, which is composed of five 10th to 11th magnitude stars, the brightest of which is the yellow 9th magnitude star GSC 7914 178 1." ==> Is there a typo in the magnitude numbers? Otherwise i don't understand, how 9 is between 10 and 11 range-wise. GermanJoe (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, I think the reason GSC etc. was mentioned was because it is brighter than the 10th-11th magnitude stars that compose the rest of the cluster. The sentence is a little unclear, though - do you think it should be rewritten? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the brightest of which" won't work in that context, but i tried rephrasing it. Feel free to revert, if i changed the intended meaning. GermanJoe (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's good. The source talks of a string of stars and GSC 7914 178 1 so is reworded okay. thx :) 06:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Image check Images are free licensed. PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I fixed two poor image source formats on Commons. Your Royer ref doesn't link because you have three names in the author line, you need to break them out like the other multi-author. PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have splitted out author in ref per FAC....but still not linking...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to list the last names in the harvnb-template aswell. Like "harvnb|last1|last2|last3|year". With more than 4 authors you'll need to create a new harvid, but up to 4 just listing them works (not stalking at all). GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should work with only three listed, you can also use et al. I"ll take a look in a bit. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed and support now I fixed the Royer ref by adding Zorec and Gómez to the harv line. PumpkinSky talk 12:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: I'm starting a read of the article now, will hopefully finish soon, but it might take me a few days. The lead looks fine, just a couple small comments thus far:
• "are defined by a polygon of 4 segments." Should "4" be written out "four" here?

Funny, I thought I'd done that already. Never mind, done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "but it can be seen from southern Europe,[7] and the southern United States.[8]" Can we remove the comma here?

I'd kept the comma in for the rule of always having refs after periods or commas, but agree that makes the punctuation not the best, so have removed the comma. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Notable features" section is very long, is there a good way to add a subsection header to break it up a bit? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

split now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, here's the rest of my comments, the article looks great, just a few minor questions and comment:
• Check for consistency with the serial comma.

I am not a fan of the extra comma before the last item, but it is useful for referencing. I've just looked through and I think everywhere there should be one there is one....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, check for consistency when using a comma before "respectively".

removed stray comma. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I made some copyedits, hopefully all agreeable. (feel free to revert any if you like)

It's funny, I would not have inserted the first "it" you put in, but whenever I write a subordinate clause leaving "it" out, someone invariably adds it again, so must be me.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you might be able to remove "located" in a few locations.

done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "both components are F8V dwarf stars with a magnitude of 5.01 each." Do we need "both" and "each" here?

It is unusual that the stars are identical. I've managed to get rid of one "both" Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "These star systems are known as Contact binaries" Should "Contact" be capitalized here?

nope - lowercase. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Though it is visible in large amateur telescopes, 3.9 degrees west-southwest of Beta Sagittarii, amateur telescopes will not show more than a suggestion of its spiral structure." Is there a way to avoid the repetition of "amateur telescopes" here?

rejigged as the magnitude will indicate what can see it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "called" is used a lot in the second paragraph of "history", might want to cut down on that if you can.

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see some inconsistency with "17th century celestial cartographer Julius Schiller" vs "The 18th Century French astronomer Jérôme Lalande", might want to check the other names too. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

century all to lower case now Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work folks, everything looks fine now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Another nice addition to the growing constellation collection. Just a couple of small points:

• "Corona Australis may have been recognized by ancient Mesopotamians in the MUL.APIN". I'd argue that it wasn't recognized by them in the MUL.APIN, but described or catalogued by them in the MUL.APIN.

Agree - but used the word "recorded" which I think carries the best connotation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Corona Australids are a meteor shower that takes place between 14 and 18 March each year". The PDF cited at ref #58 calls this shower the Beta Corona Australid shower, but on doing a Google search I find many references to the Beta Corona Austranid shower as well; are they the same thing? Also, the article says that the shower peaks in mid-March, but this h2g2 site claims it peaks in mid-May. Colour me confused.

Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. "Austrinid" would derive from "(Corona) Austrina", but this name has really declined in use against "Corona Australis". The BBC page is an h2g2 blog or wiki, and I have seen things there which I have (frustratingly) not found elsewhere. (internet pages ruffling) found something! Interesting....will ad in a tic Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe Corona Austrina ought to be mentioned as an alternative name in the lead? That h2g2 site isn't the only one claiming that the shower peaks in mid-May rather than mid-March, so that's a bit concerning. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, Corona Austrina is mentioned in the lead as an alternative name (first sentence). Essentially there are two minor meteor showers - the Corona Australids which are seen in March, and the Beta Coronae Australids (which are very very minor and only mentioned in two publications....and h2g2) which appear in May. I have mused on Corona Austrina not being in the lead as it is somewhat archaic, but still pops up here and there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it is, silly me. I hadn't noticed you'd added a bit about the Beta Coronae Australids, so that looks good now. I have to say though that "a shower originating near Beta Coronae Australis were described as the Beta Coronae Australids" looks very strange to me. Is it commonplace in astronomical circles to refer to a singular "shower" in the plural? Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, good point...hadn't thought of that. All meteor showers are described in the plural as "-ids", yet shower is clearly a collective noun here. "Shower were....?" (just sounds weird but I guess is more grammatically correct?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like "A 2006 meteor shower originating near Beta Coronae Australis, the Beta Coronae Australids, appeared in May, the same month as a nearby shower known as the May Microscopids, but they have different trajectories and are unlikely to be related." Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, they were first described in 2006, but meteor showers appear every year - the wording above makes it look like they only appeared the once... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I wasn't able to chime in earlier, but sometimes meteor showers really do only pop up once in awhile. Some recently described showers - seems like this is included - have only been seen once and we are waiting to see them again, as I understand it. Also, as far as I can tell, the singular/plural convention is to use the plural when you have the shower name written out (e.g. "the Perseids were great last year") and the singular when yous say "shower" (e.g. "the Perseid meteor shower was great last year.") Just my 2 cents/pence. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being ignored? I don't like to be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, sorry, I hadn't thought to check on this. Real life and all that. You're not being ignored, promise, I'll get to fixing this in a little bit. My apologies! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think all the terminology and verbs and such should be taken care of in this section. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks for your patience - sorry this took so long. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks good overall. Small details:

• "The variable stars R and TY Coronae Australis light up parts of the nebula, which varies in brightness with them." - probably phrase the 'with them' part less succinctly but with more clarity

I was going to write "in harmony with them/the stars", but then wondered whether the adverb "accordingly" had sufficient enough connotation to convey the same meaning......? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "It cannot be seen from the British Isles as it lies too far south,[6] but it can be seen from southern Europe[7] and the southern United States.[8] It is only visible at latitudes south of 53° north.[5]" The second sentence seems to make the first redundant. Or wrong. Iridia (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think what that's trying to say is that parts of the constellation become visible at 53 north but the whole thing is only visible from southern Europe and the southern US. Maybe Cas could weigh in? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The locations help those reading visualise where it is seen from. I rejigged it so it makes more sense. The word I forgot was "easily" seen from the southern US (changed to "readily" in the text). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Asia? Africa? South America? Oz is rather implied ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Stars section could use some more paragraphs.

Question - where would you split? Para 1 = brighter stars, Para 2 = doubles, Para 3 = others... I guess alpha and beta can have a para each...I'd worry the section looked too choppy then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to define L☉ etc since they're never subsequently used.

ok, reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Deep sky section should probably lose some of the redlinks: it's very densely linked, and hard to read. 9th-10th mag objects probably aren't going to get their own page created unless there's someone very keen.

I was planning on linking alot of the fainter variable stars to Corona Australis Molecular Cloud once the latter article is made. Most of the other objects are galaxies which I think will end up with a page...tricky. I am loth to delink so might try and blue some of the links. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Associating South Africa and Australia in the Mythology sections doesn't really make sense: add a para.

Para split Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Australian section is missing the association of Corona Australis with the Gosses Bluff impact crater in Central mythology. Paper is probably by Hamacher et al. and would be recent.

I got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support once these are addressed. Iridia (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, already. This has been nicely polished-up and is ripe. Almost FA-starred it myself when I saw a congrats on it… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.