Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RJHall (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 11 October 2006 (→[[Star]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Star

Prior FAC attempts: archive1, archive2

This article is about a core concept in astronomy. It has undergone multiple PR's and all of the issues raised during the last FAC have been addressed. Since the last FAC this page has undergone some growth and the organization of two of the sections have been enhanced. I believe it is of FA quality. Please take a look and let me know if you agree. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object
  • First sentence: A star is ... gravity and, unlike a planet, ... to sustain nuclear fusion in a very dense, hot core region. Bad sentence structure. Don't use comparisons or negative phrases in the lead (unlike)
    • Ah the joys of collaborative edits. That was actually correct at one point before somebody decided to edit it into the current form. It appears to have been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (HR-diagram)... lay people will not know what this is unless they click on it (causing a fork in reading). Avoid using in lead as the context needs to be explained to establish understanding.
    • "A Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HR-diagram) shows the pattern of the temperature of stars against their absolute magnitude..." Isn't this self-explanatory? — RJH (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.1 & 3.3.1 are single subsections. Considered bad style to have a single subsection in almost all style guides.
    • The manual of style states to "use sub-headings if the section becomes a bit long". I see nothing in there about it being bad style to have single subsections. Could you clarify? — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the lead summarizing the article.
    • Yes that's somewhat true. I think it focuses on key points.
  • Early astronomers such as Tycho Brahe
  • Observation history contains mostly western science viewpoints. In 1584 Giordano Bruno suggested that the stars were actually other suns, and may have Earth-like -- has this never been proposed before?
    • The focus of the article is on the scientific aspects of the stars. Unfortunately most the history of the telescopic observation of the stars is from a western viewpoint. So I regard a certain bias in that aspect as a necessity from the 1600's onward. I added in Democritus and Epicurus, two early Greek philosophers who suggested the idea of other worlds. Also western, "unfortunately". :-) — RJH (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • seeing variability -- I've just started to read the article and I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
  • 225 km/s -- Mos for units not followed. Use the non-breaking space
    • Mos? Please clarify your abbr. Ah, okay: mos = Manual of style. Mos states to use SI units. "km/s" is SI units. I added npsp's and linked the units. — RJH (talk)
  • Article size is large. Suggest a summary: =Formation and evolution= can and should be summarized keeping the technical details in sub articles
  • .gif image found. Convert to .png
  • I don't see an absolute need of keeping mathematical figures for =Radiation= & Nuclear fusion reaction pathways. The two sections can be summarized further, and details moved to sub articles. Since this is a general topic, the page should be reader friendly to people not familiar with trignometery.
  • Main article: main sequence -- should be Sentence case: (Main sequence)

I don't have time to check on all the points. If all are taken care off, please strike my objection off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.4.162 (talk)

Thanks for your review. As I noted above I have a some issues with a few of your objections, so I'm going to hold off on some of the suggested changes to see what consensus is reached. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with some qualifications. Re anons points, the use of a comparison is appropriate here because it's central to the definition. To define a star is to distinguish it from a planet.

I agree with the anon. The article on Definition states that you define something by stating the essential properties of the thing being defined. It not being a planet is not an essential property. I've removed the "unlike a planet" due to this.Harryboyles 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formation section does appear long given the sub-articles, but this article is better than the subs, after a glance at them. Don't compress this one, until you're sure those are in order. Abundance and redundancy is preferable to a lack of coverage.
  • The lead is insufficient, as it only summarizes evolution. Consider a short para on characteristics, another on classification, and at least a sentence devoted to observation history.
  • Writing: some excess language at the clause level, but this is well-written.

Good job! Marskell 10:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The lead sentence says that a star is "a massive, compact body...". Massive and compact seem contradictory words and a bit ambiguous. Harryboyles 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it the word "massive" that's ambiguous? Perhaps "enormous" would serve? Massive implies dimension, while compact is a measure of density. (A galaxy is enormous but non-compact; a neutron star is relatively small, but highly compact.) — RJH (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Star&oldid=80848436"