Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eta Carinae/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2015 [1].

Eta Carinae

Nominator(s): Lithopsian & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the biggest baddest star (system) within 10,000 light-years. It's had input from astronomer Mike Peel who got some other professional astronomers to look at it as well, and Hamiltonstone to see it from a layperson's point of view to make it as accessible as possible. We reckon we're pretty close to FA status and promise to fix stuff as quickly as possible. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Belated query, Cas, but is this a WikiCup entry for you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oops, yes it is (I was still on autopilot expecting a bot to do that) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Studying the reference information, I find these issues, that should be easy to fix: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference Wilson, Ralph Elmer (1953). "General catalogue of stellar radial velocities". has a stray "0" - is that a month or something?
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference "The periodicity of the η Carinae events†‡§¶" has a set of foot notes that should not really be in the title "†‡§¶"
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference Will Gater; Anton Vamplew; Jacqueline Mitton. The practical astronomer has no date or publisher
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference " 陳久金 (2005). 中國星座神 (in Chinese). 台灣書房出版有限公司." could do with some translation of author and title into English.
Added translations of the author, title, and publisher to both Chinese references. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference " Mehner, A.; Ishibashi, K.; Whitelock, P.; Nagayama, T.; Feast, M.; Van Wyk, F.; De Wit, W.-J. (2014). "VizieR Online Data Catalog: Near-infrared photometry of {eta} Carinae" says its from "2014A&A...564A..14M" but this is obviously an abbreviation for another publication [2] which says doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201322729 title="Near-infrared evidence for a sudden temperature increase in Eta Carinae" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is correct. Despite the different titles, one is the online catalogue for the other. Apparently at least some VizieR catalogs come with their own bibcodes. I could just use the journal paper for both, but that is just hiding the relevant facts behind another layer. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The White, S. M.; Duncan, R. A.; Chapman, J. M.; Koribalski, B. (2005). "The Radio Cycle of Eta Carinae" reference is missing some info, like the name of the series, publisher, or conference name, and page number looks inconsistent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smith, Nathan (2006). "The Structure of the Homunculus ..." reference has a mangled title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we got this (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "2" should be subscript, the Eta should be η, Feii looks like it should be "Fe II" but perhaps the II needs to be in small caps. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah got this now. They don't look like small caps on bibcode page so left them normal size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • D. John Hillier; K. Davidson; K. Ishibashi; T. Gull (June 2001). "On the Nature of the Central Source in η Carinae". has an abbreviated journal title ApJ - what is that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference Ian Ridpath. Astronomy has no year of publication or publisher. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
done by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The see also section should not be needed in a FA. The terms should be linked from somewhere in the article if they are relevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
removed by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is no where to link them from, then the article is missing something that should be said, eg Bipolar outflow
    • List of largest stars could be linked from "largest known stars"
done by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
done by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of most massive stars could be linked from "extremely massive luminous star" or "most massive"
    • Eta Carinids should rate a mention in the article in the missing section about things named after the star
added by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Eruption should be a redirect to this, and bolded in the text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says " to magnitude 4.6 as of 2012", but can we get an update for 2015? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. The secular rate of increase is less than 0.1 magnitudes per decade, with more rapid changes of at least that scale superimposed on the trend. The apparent magnitude just doesn't get officially reported very often, and only a statistically analysed number consistent with previous data could really be used in Wikipedia. The brightness actually took a bit of a blip up in mid-2014 during the periastron passage, but then dropped back. The online monitoring web page could perhaps be used to support a more recent magnitude claim. Click through on the green chart to see individual V observations up to Aug 30th 2014, clearly showing the blip up. AAVSO estimates suggest the brightness very quickly dropped back to 4.5 or 4.6 and has stayed there. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead sentence could already include an exciting fact about the star, that it once was the second brightest star. (not sure about this) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rejigged like this to list its prodigious luminosity and the brightness in the 1840s in the first few sentences Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
fixed by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference "The Tycho-2 catalogue of the 2.5 million brightest stars" has a CS1 maint: display-authors
Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference "Evolution and fate of very massive stars" has a CS1 maint: display-authors
Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference "VizieR Online Data Catalog: General Catalogue of Variable Stars (Samus+ 2007-2013)" has CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (these three errors put the article into hidden maintenance categories)
Interestingly, the author list in the reference itself has "et al." for the 3rd author. I'm not sure how to go about changing this here, since I'm not seeing a clear way of discovering who the other authors are. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the lua module for this, and there is no easy work around as I thought there might be. If more authors can be found then diusplay-authors=2 could be used to make et al appear. But it always complains if you input that text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a somewhat clunky workaround, but it seems to now be displaying correctly with no CS1 error, even if the wikitext is a little messy. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like your work around! It works fine, and won't even mess up metadata. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the sentence on Eta Carinids belong under Visibility? Some may think these meteors come from the star. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; it doesn't really seem to fit there. However, I loath to have a one-sentence level 2 section about meteor showers, since nothing else really fits with it. I see you wanted the "see also" section removed, but I think it may be the ideal choice in this situation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some clarifying text; does this work better? StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That text works for me. If there was a section on the location in the sky, that would be the logical place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The light curve generator cuts off the date, and I haven't found a way to fix it. The current image is up to date bar a few weeks. I'll update the captions to reflect the correct dates. Lithopsian (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just tried to create an image without the truncated X-axis, but it appears to be a bug in the software itself, which cuts off the last date. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we may have to download the image, expand the canvas and edit in the missing numbers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both light curve images updated to fix x-axis formatting problems. Lithopsian (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a possible updated historical light curve. It goes back to the earliest observations, and I changed the aspect ratio so the interesting bits aren't completely lost. Is it better than what we have now? Lithopsian (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly better when zoomed, but as a thumbnail it won't add much understanding. I am happy with the images in the article now. They do lead to another question about the intensive observations that are happening now. Are these keen amateurs? Is this worth a a mention in the article? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. 99% of observations of bright variable stars are made by amateurs. I don't know quite what we do with that factoid though, if anything. Lithopsian (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: it's a very nice article on well-studied object. However, there are a few areas that I think are in need of refinement:
  • I have concerns with the use of astronomical notation without explanation, which may make parts of the article inaccessible to lay readers.
    • In the 'Visual spectrum', several instances of ion notation occur without explanation.
Note added with explanation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I moved the note up to the first use of the notation. Praemonitus (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Ultraviolet section, the ionization notation changes to Fe+.
I've linked a couple of terms, although it may not be obvious that they are to explain the notation rather than being specific to the chemical element or the actual ion. The differing notation is used when referring to an actual ion rather than the originator of a spectral line. Both are correct and could possibly be used in either case, but this seems to be how the pros use them. Lithopsian (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lyα (Lyman alpha), M☉ (solar mass), 4" (arc seconds), 10,000 AU, and L☉ (solar luminosity) are used without explanation.
All done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only see about half of them have been addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I guess how I replied could be considered ambiguous; I only meant the last bullet point was addressed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Homunculus Nebula is mentioned before it is explained, and is not linked at its first occurrence.
Linked. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this is hard, I tried defining it at first mention, like this but tricky when discussed in detail not at first mention... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'core hydrogen burning', 'bolometric luminosity', 'hydrogen shell burning', 'nitrogen sequence', and 'core collapse supernovae' are unlinked
linked bolometric to wikt definition as succinct and figured a repeat link to luminosity too wordy. bolometer not helpful either. hydrogen core and hydrogen shell burning tricky - just trying to figure best target. others linked both linked by Lithopsian now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Eta Carinae is the brightest IR source outside the solar system': anywhere? Or in terms of apparent brightness?
Seems to have been reworded by someone else. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that sentence completely. It is now discussed, and worded, better elsewhere. Lithopsian (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'temperature of a 60 R☉ hydrostatic "core"': what does this mean? It is unclear from the context.
I've heavily rewritten the Temperature section to try and clarify (or confuse!) the issue of the temperature of the primary star. I've added a little explanation of what a hydrostatic core might be. Lithopsian (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complete loss of the Earth's ozone layer is a plausible consequence of a nearby supernova": does 'nearby' mean a distance closer or further than Eta Car?
Alot closer - it talks about "50 light-years" for much of the paper and so appears to use this to define "nearby". I've rejigged this a little having just now read both papers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Samus, N. N.; Durlevich, O. V. et al. (2009)": the two other instances of 'et al' have much longer author lists.
Problem is, in this case, the source itself doesn't give any more authors, but rather lists the rest after Durlevich as "et al". StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going through this word by word in alphabetical order, and I have fixed many minor issues. But I have found these that I would like ideas on:

  • Inconsistent use of m⊙ versus m☉ — they look the same but are not, what is correct? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most are formatted by a solar mass tag, so we're stuck with that. The two different ones are within journal titles, which tend to be ascii-fied. I've changed those two to match the Wikipedia template formatting. Lithopsian (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of "color" however the rest of the article looks like British English, should we change this to colour? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I pondered Color–color diagram but found it written as "Colour–colour diagram" also, so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is good. Since it is largely British spelling now, should we add a British Spelling tag to try and keep it consistent in the future? Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added this to editnotice.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • imposter and impostor both appear for the same kind of thing. We should use only one spelling, but what? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several refs use impostor, the article is supernova impostor, and I tend to feel impostor is more correct. Several sources state that both are correct but impostor is more common. I have a feeling that at some point my spellchecker baulked at impostor and I have been adding imposter, but I've now changed all instances to impostor. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
neither is wrong - impostor apparently slightly more correct. They are all that now anyway..it'll do.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of ≈, would this be better to replace with "about"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it prosier Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page numbering shortcuts, should we allow it - eg "927-32". I prefer "927-932". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always abbreviate to two digits, but some other editors don't. I did think there was an MOS discussion on it but haven't seen it for ages and maybe am imagining it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange initial abbreviations of J.-M. and J.-C. Perhaps this is a French style as the publishers also use this "-". But should we use it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've always seen hyphenated names (often chinese names as well as french) done this way so does not strike me as odd at all, sorry Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three uses of "our" for our galaxy, and "our own Sun". Should this just be "the Milky Way" and "the Sun"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see, I like "our" here but nobody else seems to :(....I think it makes the prose more engaging personally Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
All done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images could stand to be larger - particularly those with annotations or text. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some of the images a little larger; I don't want to make them too much larger, as making the text not appears squished is important, since many screens (including my own) are only 13 inches. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IMGSIZE, if you use the 'upright' option rather than a fixed size, the images should scale based on your user settings. Praemonitus (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a play with upright. I just read WP:PIC and understand how it works now. Lithopsian (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. RE: "Eta Carinae is too far south to be part of the mansion-based traditional Chinese astronomy, but it was mapped when ...". Do you not think the word "it" may be redundant?
Okay, I agree with you and would remove the second "it", however most reviewers much prefer the second "it" to remain (I've had sentences like these tweaked many times at FAC!). It is a style thing... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. RE: "Observations at the Cape of Good Hope indicated it peaked in brightness, surpassing Canopus, over March 11 to 14 1843 before beginning to fade, then brightening to between the brightness of Alpha Centauri and Canopus between March 24 and 28 before fading once again". Should "brightening" be "brightened"?
Yes - good catch, and tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. RE: "The peaks in 1827, 1838, and 1843". Is the second comma needed??
This is the Serial comma issue. I generally didn't use them, but they are very useful if you have to slot a reference for something in a list. Many people here use them. Again a style thing.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also known as the Oxford comma. I know some people don't like them, but they are occasionally important for clarity, so I use them except in the very rare cases where they would be confusing. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Lithopsian here; I usually prefer the comma since leaving it out can sometimes cause ambiguity. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. RE: "The size of Eta Carinae A is not even well defined". I can't see why you've used the word "even".
We don't know how big either star is because of the dust and gas in the way, but we do know Eta Carinae B is likely to be a star with a clear-cut surface (like most stars), however Eta Carinae A seems to be disrupted and chaotic, so that it may not even have a clear-cut surface, which is unusual..does that make sense? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went to change this as it seemed like a bit of a weasel word, but it does appear to be there for a reason. The opening paragraph of the section says that the size isn't well known. Then, the second paragraph says that, in addition, the size of the primary isn't even well-defined. The word "even" could come out but I think the prose would lose some meaning. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. RE: "In some scenarios, the secondary can accrue significant mass, accelerating its evolution, and in turn being stripped by the now compact Wolf–Rayet primary". The grammar here is puzzling.
Yes - well-spotted, tweaked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


More comments from Singora Singora (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I SUPPORT this article. To be frank, it strikes me as excellent. However:

1. On a random check, refs 35, 43, 48, 50, 54, 65, 73, 87, 114 and 115 point to a Harvard University website. Do you think these links should be archived? It's very easy to archive links, btw. If you're not sure how to do this, please let me know.
thanks for the support, those links aren't via a url parameter but from the bibcode parameter. Not sure how to do it with that. The harvard website is a pretty massive one with fulltexts of a huge number of astronomy papers - I can't imagine it going down or moving... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bibcodes are like PMID or DOI numbers and they are handled by the cite template. At the moment they happen to point to absabs.harvard.edu and the template creates the full URL automatically. Bibcodes will probably stay there for the conceivable future, but if they ever moved then the template would create a url to the new location. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This website is the Astrophysics Data System: it's the main repository of astronomy papers, and it's been running since 1992 so it (hopefully) shouldn't need archiving any time soon! If it does, there are mirrors (e.g., http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/) that the template call can be updated to point to. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

Fascinating article, which I'm happy to support. One comment: In 1827 Burchell specifically noted its unusual brightness at 1st magnitude. Surely the first sentence of a new section should mention its subject? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

duly tweaked - thx for supporting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed 3 CS1 errors and added some alt= text for most images. Can someone please check my alt text? Otherwise the rest of the article is ready to go so I will add support. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx for supporting and tweaking (alt texts look ok) - much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Discovery and naming has Pieter Keyser 1595-96 observation. Frew 2004, p. 42 mentions an earlier observation by "Hues". Shouldn't this be mentioned? Simon Burchell (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is explained on bottom of page 14 and onto page 15. Hues described the bright stars and did not appear to notice Eta Carinae, leading to the assumption that it was not bright enough to stand out at the time. Hues description is pretty vague though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same section, most of the first para is referenced to Frew 2004. However, the statement "when he recorded the star simply as Sequens" does not seem to be supported by the text - a search for the word "Sequens" turned up no results in the PDF. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what's happened here. I think things have been shuffled about... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that. A suitable reference would be Catalogus stellarum australium itself. You should be able to see a copy online. Lithopsian (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have added this as a reference now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1751 Nicolas Louis de Lacaille mapped the stars of Argo Navis and Robur Carolinum and divided them into separate smaller constellations. The star was placed within the keel portion of the ship named as the new constellation Carina, gaining the name Eta Carinae. - the only bits of this in the given source are "1751" and "Lacaille". Simon Burchell (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is talked about in a wordy way bottom page 20 and page 21, but the term "Charles Tree" and "Oak" are used for Robur Carolinum. Regarding the names, the article is really focussed on the brightness variations so is not fussing about when it was called Eta Argus, Eta Navis or Eta Carinae but refers to it by its modern name and older names when in quotes without comment assuming readers are familiar with the name changes without the need to explain them. I can see this needs a more explicit ref and will find something to clarify Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Found something and learnt something in the process. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new reference to this rearrangement of constellations. Lithopsian (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences Eta Carinae has the names Tseen She (from the Chinese 天社 [Mandarin: tiānshè] "Heaven's altar") and Foramen. It is also known as 海山二 (Hǎi Shān èr, English: the Second Star of Sea and Mountain)" are also problematic. The source is entirely in Chinese, and I see no mention of "Foramen". However, that may simply be because it is transcribed in Chinese. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The names are referenced in the starbox. I can repeat the references in the text if you think it is necessary, but tend not to in most cases, to avoid citation overload. Lithopsian (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final paragraph seems OK; however the page no. 6 given for ref 2 (Frew 2004) does not apply to all the instances where that ref is cited. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weird, that's the issue I think - the pages go from 1 to 76...ref adjusted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Eruption - all sourcing seems OK in this section. Checked 2, 11, 24, 25. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lesser Eruption Ref 27, page numbering is inaccurate. Also, the section gives 1887-1895, but p. 1127 gives 1887-1894. I couldn't find the 7.5 figure in the article, otherwise it looks generally OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some astronomy papers just give the first page rather than page range. tweaked now. year changed. I've seen both years used but have aligned with source. back later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have described the timeline in more detail, following Frew, and added the reference. The Humphreys reference was mostly for the absolute magnitude stuff in the second half of that paragraph. Lithopsian (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spot-checked a number of further references, and all seems in order. I'm happy with the changes made to address my previous concerns, which seem largely limited to one section. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

About ready to promote this but:

  • Can we cite the last bit of Discovery and naming?
  • There are a few duplinks you might be able to lose (I assume someone would have Ucucha's checker installed).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last bit of Discovery and naming now cited. Please let me add support too. (Duplinks don't worry me). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most duplicate links removed. I kept a few that I felt were useful to have around the area they were in, but got rid of most. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Eta_Carinae/archive1&oldid=1145608061"