Talk:Corona Borealis

Corona Borealis in fiction

I created the page Stellar constellations in fiction primarily to address this constellation. Any thoughts on this?

RhinoMind (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I hate split offs like this-if I improve this article I will put off putting information on a page like that until this section gets large on this page. For instance look at Betelgeuse and Betelgeuse in fiction. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Now hate is a strong word, so thanks for describing your concerns in more useful terms.

Stellar constellations in fiction was also created to pool and motivate information on fictional roles of other stellar constellations. Just like Stars in fiction does. Describing fictional roles on specific pages would be great, but it does not give a proper overview. "...primarily to adress this constellation.", was perhaps to narrow-minded and not exactly right. Guess I should discuss these issues on the Talk:Stellar constellations in fiction page?

Now I am not aware, if any other constellations have featured in fictional works. I hope the new page will bring it out, in the near future. If not (can anybody prove or show this?), then as you suggest(?) the page can be opted for deletion I guess. But only then.

As said, lets move this discussion to the proper talk page from now on. Im sorry. RhinoMind (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, substitute "groan and roll my eyes" for "hate" then. But yeah, but thanks for reminding me of Hypnos, shoulda remembered that one....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I will now move/copy this discussion to the page Talk:Stellar constellations in fiction. RhinoMind (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why not merge this in with Constellations as a section, rather than having a separate article that doesn't contain that much info? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Notes to self

Gliese 611 seems pretty unremarkable - a yellow and red dwarf binary, no planets, just beyond naked eye visibility....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Corona Borealis" + folklore --> google scholar Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Corona Borealis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As requested, the review will be completed in a day or two and I declare my participation in WikiCup. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

• Talking about cites, all looks good and well reliable with a few doubt which I have. Makemson 1941 and Squire, C. (2000) do not point anywhere and will be good with online cites, if possible. Some refs need access-date and some needs a trim. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

all the all cite webs have accessdates, others do not need them. Squire and Makemson should click down to the book refs now. I don't understand that web check link - if I click on them, they work.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• The lead section uses a good amount of pronouns which could be replaces by nouns or better replacements. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have changed one pronoun to "Corona Borealis" - I worry if I change another it will sound too repetitive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Modern references section requires a slight expansion. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any other modern references but expanded the story a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• More footnotes/cites are expected in infobox. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

the infobox is proving difficult to insert references in...I will see which ones are ok. Actually none of the Featured Article constellations have more footnotes in the infobox. I guess we can look at it as a Lead, with the references in the body of the text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• It was one of the 48 constellation mentioned in Almagest by Claudius Ptolemy. This could be explained in the history section. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

good catch - added to body of text now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Result

The article passed the GA review and is left with two redlinks, owing to their significance as future articles. The article is now satisfying the criteria for the GA-status and made it go. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 07:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

thx +++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

@Casliber: asked me to provide some input. So here we go:
Lead:

• "Four star systems have been found to have exoplanets to date" should have a date attached, as this number will doubtless increase in the future.

this is tricky as I have no ref denoting a particular time. I have removed the "to date" - can easily update when more planets are announced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• The high accuracy of the RA/dec limits in the infobox doesn't appear to be supported by the reference.

this is tricky as the actual stats are at a subpage here just off the linked page - however the page is just text and has nothing to denote what it is, so not sure the best way to structure the reference Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest including both links in one reference (e.g. using two cite webs), and making it clear that the subpage is part of the main IAU page/record. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at a cite web template, will try and sort Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable features:

• Rather than splitting this section into 'stars' and 'deep-sky objects', I'd suggest splitting it as 'Galactic' and 'Extragalactic', which is a standard division in professional astronomy.

this one might need a discussion at the wikiproject page as alot of constellation articles are laid out this way (like all the books on google books). The other way makes more sense but best to get a consensus I think and change them all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, want me to start the conversation, or do you want to? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• There are a number of "around N" statements in this section. I'd recommend quoting uncertainties on the values instead.

added quite a few Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Zeta Coronae Borealis is a double star divisible in small telescopes" - what's "small"?

clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• "An outburst of T Coronae Borealis was first recorded in 1866; its most recent outburst was in February 1946" - perhaps say "second recorded" rather than "most recent" so that the text will age better. Similar with "extreme decreases happened most recently in" - although I'm not sure the years need to be included in this article.

tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jupiter is mentioned several times, but I don't think it's linked.

linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The combined cluster is six million light years across, contains hundreds of galaxies and enough gas to make a thousand more." needs a reference.

the diameter is in the NEDS ref, the other material isn't and has been removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• What's a "heliocentric redshift"?

centred on the sun I suspect - redundant so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• You could add an image of Abell 2142 to illustrate the deep-sky objects section.

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• NGC 6085 and NGC 6086 also appear to be in this constellation and would be worth mentioning.

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Corona Borealis Supercluster should be discussed, see e.g. [1]. (Also see [2] and [3] on CMB/SZ observations here, but note that I have a COI there as I work with a number of the authors of those papers.)

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Mention the dust cloud around R CrB [4]

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• There may also be other interesting things to include in the articles linked to from [5].

looking into RW CrB..goddamn R CrB is mentioned alot!! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

History and mythology

• I'd recommend renaming this to "Mythology", and move the "modern references" section to something like "literary mentions" (or "literary and musical mentions" if you include the album linked to at the top of the article).

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• It seems odd to see "Non-western depictions" as a separate subsection here: why not merge it with the rest of the mythology text?

merged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

References

• The text under "Cited texts" could be included in the in-line reference, and the two duplicate in-line references to it merged (currently #7 and #23).
• Reference #43 seems to be a note rather than a reference.

twaeked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reference #47 could do with an ISBN / link.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

yep - this is a great help Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice changes! I have a few more suggestions:

• ADS 9731 appears rather unexpectedly in the paragraph, and it isn't obvious that it's part of Corona Borealis rather than being mentioned as an even rarer type of star system. Maybe add "in the constellation" after "even rarer multiple system".

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• It might be worth sub-sectioning the section into something like 'constellation pattern stars', 'multiple star systems', 'variable stars' and 'exoplanets' to make the order of the information clearer.

am tempted, though worried that the top bit which is brightest stars has doubles and variables in it too. Also concerned it might be making it too choppy.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• "composed of grains 5nm in diameter" - link nanometre? Similarly with µm later in the paragraph.

linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Distance calculated from redshift." - it would be worth mentioning which cosmological parameters were used to do this.

hmmm - trying to think of the best way to do or link.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Doctor Blofeld

• Be consistent with numbers, The other six stars are Theta, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, and Iota Coronae Borealis. The German cartographer Johann Bayer gave twenty stars vs 37 stars etc.

damn...I sorta like the numbers as words and that one damn '37' stuffs it....need to think about if it's far enough away not to bother... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• What is a cataclysmic variable star?

linked now - the explanation is a sentence or two down - i.e. a red giant and white dwarf sucking matter off it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Galaxy cluster should be linked in the first instance not third.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• " likely called Te Hetu in the Tuamotus, whose people called the constellation Na Kaua-ki-tokerau. In Hawaii, the constellation was likely called Kaua-mea; it was called R" -rep of likely and called a lot here, might reword one or too for variation.

yeah, trimmed that a bit and streamlined it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• What makes ianridpath.com a reliable source?

He's a notable author of star guides etc. See here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can find little fault with it in terms of content but then I'm not an expert. Watch out for possible overlink or wrongly timed links though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

comments

Comments in response to a request for feedback from Casliber.

• Yes the prose quickly takes us into fairly technical content, but I'm not seeing evidence yet that it is done poorly.
• "The components of the double star Zeta Coronae Borealis have since been designated Zeta1 and Zeta2, and John Flamsteed equated his 20 and 21 Coronae Borealis with Nu¹ and Nu²". This sentence confused me. I presume the "his" here means Flamsteed; if not, then it needs tweaking. Either way, I have no idea what Nu¹ is about, and therefore couldn't work out what information the sentence was conveying.

Clarified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been expanded, but I'm afraid I'm still a bit lost. There were 20 stars in the constellation. Then one was split into a binary and designated Zeta1 and Zeta2. That makes 21 stars. Then we see Flamsteed has 21, but when we're told what his designations for the last two are, they turn out to be two different stars to the two Zetas. So now I have, what 22? Or is it 23? I think we need a text that is more historical in nature. That says something like - while Bayer had twenty stars, in the Xth century, one of these was recognised as a binary and denoted as A and B. Then, in 18XX, Flamsteed separated another binary that was amongst Bayer's original list; these are now known as C and D. I hope that is clear! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• "appears as a blue-white star of apparent magnitude 2.2, though it is an Algol-type eclipsing binary" - why "though"? Does being an Algol-type somehow normally preclude being blue-white? If the "though" is a reference to it appearing as a single star, but is in fact a binary, then I would move the "Algol-type eclipsing" information to another point in the para, to avoid leaving the reader which one of the many attributes mentioned in this sentence is the one to which the "though" refers.

I have massaged it a bit - the (slight) contrastive is that it is two stars - have massaged the prose to that effect Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• "around 2.09" solar masses - I never think "around" is an appropriate word when one is giving a measure to two decimal places. The word "around" is used four times in two paragraphs. I think there has to be some acceptance in an encyclopedia article (as distinct from a scientific paper) that we can't go qualifying every measurement with a word like that, just because there are variations in the estimates. As far as I'm concerned I would remove a decimal place from the number, and the qualifying word.

reduced one decimal place. I think the 'around' is necessary despite the repetitiveness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I probably don't agree re "around", but see how you go at FAC - it seems to me the sort of prose thing that may get picked on. Happy to leave it for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• "optical double" needs a wikilink.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• "T Coronae Borealis is a binary star with a red-hued giant primary and a small blue secondary; its period is approximately 8 months". This tripped me up for a while - I was thinking that the orbital period of the binary was 8 months. Then I realised (?) that it is referring to variation in brightness of the secondary. Try "T Coronae Borealis is a binary star with a red-hued giant primary and a small variable blue secondary with a period of 8 months".

8 months is the period the stars go round each other. clarified now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• "...a luminosity 16643 times that of the Sun and has a surface temperature of 3033 K". Really? These two measurements can accurately be made to within a single quantum of luminosity and degree Kelvin respectively? We cannot measure the temperature of the surface of our own sun with such precision, to my knowledge, in part because it is not such a constant feature. Still, if that is what the source says, i guess we are stuck with it...

yeah, can't argue with sources, and any othr way is less accurate...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile U Coronae Borealis varies in magnitude from 7.7 to 8.8 over 5 hours, but is an eclipsing binary with a period of 3 days and 19 hours". Not sure about either the "but" or the mashing together of this information.

I'll take AAVSO over lay guidebook - the former quite different so material replaced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• "At the cluster's center is a large elliptical galaxy containing the supermassive black hole". Why "the" supermassive black hole rather than "a"?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Polynesian peoples often recognized Corona Borealis; it was likely called Te Hetu in the Tuamotus, whose people called the constellation Na Kaua-ki-tokerau." As per Blofield, there is still a problem in this para with repetition of "likely called". Separate to that, the quoted stence appears to say the constellation was called X in this place, where the people called it Y. That makes no sense.

Otherwise good, and would support at FAC with these things fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)