Talk:Antlia

• Bulleted list item

Loan word, really?

Reading the article Loanword would be appropriate. Maybe English speakers believe that Antliae is spelled Antliae and pronounced /ˈæntlɪ.iː/ in Greek (?!!), but firstly Antlia is imported via Latin, using Latinized spelling, and secondly in Latin it is spelled /ˈantlɪ.ɛː/, and so Antlia/Antliae is a foreign word, as usual within English a gravely mispronounced one. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The text leaps to conclusions

It says:

It was originally denominated Antlia pneumatica to commemorate the air pump invented by the French physicist Denis Papin.^{[1][not in citation given]}

But the source (Star Tales) doesn't say so. Star Tales, not Lacaille, concludes that the Antlia pneumatica depicts an invention by Denis Papin. The editor who formulated that statement didn't read carefully, but instead jumped to conclusions not claimed by the source text used for the citation. Read more carefully! Please!! (Now, guess who is going to do the cleanup? ...) ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 17:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. -- Saskoiler (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall, the prose is clear, and there are no major problems. I have made several suggestions below (see: Prose) Update: The questions and suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: The lead section has an appropriate length for an article of this size/nature. I like that it follows a structure consistent with many other constellation articles, with 1st paragraph devoted to naming/history/location, and the 2nd paragraph devoted to characteristics of the stars. I have one question (see below: Lead) about the lead content. Layout: The article is appropriately divided into sections (e.g. History, Characteristics, Notable Features), and these sections are consistent with other constellation articles (including several featured articles). The infobox is a valuable addition, and also consistent with other constellation articles. Reference sections and bottom matter are all good. I have a question about the categorization (see below: Categories). Words to watch: All okay Fiction: n/a List incorporation: n/a Update: The questions and suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a "References" section with a list of 43 citations and 4 separately described sources.
	2b. 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).	I checked every source that I had access to. For each one, I verified (to the best of my ability) the facts and statistics being supported. With only a few exceptions, I found that the citations did accurately support this article. Those exceptions are noted below (in Verifiability), and have already been addressed since I last worked on this review. Citations are from reliable sources: academic papers, books, high-quality astronomy sites, etc.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article contains no original research. (There were a couple of exceptions noted below, but they have already been addressed.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There is no discernible trace of plagiarism or copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of the topic have been addressed. I compared the sections of this article with five other randomly-selected constellation articles (all FA-class), and this one has similar sections and covers similar aspects of the overall topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article stays focused. There are no off-topic tangents. The level of depth is balanced across sections appropriately. Again, I compared loosely to the five other constellation articles.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is written in a neutral point of view.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. There's no hint of an edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are four images accompanying this article. All four are tagged with a suitable copyright status. One is in the public domain, two are by-attribution, and one is attribution-sharealike. All is good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All four images are highly relevant to the topic, and enhance the article significantly. Three have suitable captions, while the fourth is used suitably in the upper-right infobox.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this is a very well-researched article. I have learned a great deal by reading it and following up in some of the citations. When the items below are addressed, I think this will be worthy of "good article" status. Update: The questions and suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed. I believe that this article now meets the good article criteria, and I am marking this review as "passed". Congratulations to all contributers.

Items to Address

The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.

Verifiability

• Citations to adjust?
  • Citation #3 ("The 100 Nearest Star Systems") appears to be moved to here.

Updated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• • Citations #2 and #15 have the same URL - http://www.iau.org/public/constellations/#ant - which redirects to http://www.iau.org/public/themes/constellations/#ant . I was going to merge it until I noticed that both references are named ("boundary" and "boundary-2") and it makes me paranoid that someone intended to have two different references here. Perhaps I'm just reading too much into it.

good to be careful - they are the same, and combined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• • Citation #11 has no ISBN. Is this right? 9780486209180 Or is that some other edition?

That's it - updated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The International Astronomical Union subsequently adopted it as one of the 88 modern constellations." → Seems like this statement ought to be supported with a citation. Perhaps add a citation to http://www.iau.org/public/themes/constellations/ or some other?

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• "the smallest of the constellations introduced by Lacaille.[14]" → I could be misinterpreting something, but I believe this statement is factually incorrect. The only hint of a supporting claim in this source I could find is "Antlia, the baby of the Lacaille constellations". On the other hand, 88 modern constellations by area (and this source show that the area of Antlia (238.901) is larger than Microsopium, Norma, Mensa, Caelum, Reticulum, and Circinus, all of which were introduced by Lacaille.

Yeah, it's obviously wrong come to look at it. Removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• "This group of constellations is prominent in the southern sky in late winter and spring." → Does this need to be supported by a citation? Or does it qualify as "common knowledge"?

Actually, I have removed it now, as it depends on time of night and hemisphere. If I see a more exact description I will add it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Alpha Antliae...is located 370 ± 20 light-years away from Earth.[20] ... Delta Antliae ... 430 ± 30 light-years distant from Earth.[20] ... Zeta1 Antliae—is 410 ± 40 light-years distant ...[20] ... Zeta2 Antliae—is 380 ± 20 light-years distant[20] ... Located 710 ± 40 light-years from Earth,[20] Epsilon Antliae" → All five of these statements reference citation #20 (van Leeuwen). However, I don't see anything in this scientific paper which gives these distance statistics. Is there supplementary data that I missed? I imagine I'm just not familiar with how this data is disseminated.

The van Leeuwen paper measured the parallaxes for many many stars and is the reference at SIMBAD - if you look at any bright star there it will use this paper as a reference. Much of the data is online. The paper has lots of parallaxes which are converted to get the distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• " Eta Antliae is another double composed of an F-type main sequence star of spectral type and magnitude 5.22, with a companion of magnitude 11.3." → I think this statement needs to be supported by a citation. It's possible that one of the citations used elsewhere qualifies, but I can't tell exactly. I tried looking in the supplementary data to the Eggleton article, but I got 5.31 and 11.3, so that's not quite a match.

Many of these articles use(d) popular guidebooks to reference chunks of text - I have adjusted it to use the Eggleton parameters and used it as a cite. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• "UX Antliae is an R Coronae Borealis variable with a baseline apparent magnitude of around 11.85, with irregular dimmings down to below magnitude 18.0.[35]" → I don't understand where 11.85 and 18.0 come from at the cited source. I'm seeing a magnitude range of 6.22 to 6.28 in the source. Am I misreading the data?

I forgot to update the link when making a new page - fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• The one notable omission in the lead seems to be that Antlia is not identified as being one of the 88 modern constellations. Perhaps this is implied, but I think it may be beneficial to state it explicitly. What do you think?

I realised we've added it to some and not other FA constellations. Good add and duly added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories

• I was surprised that in the category list for this article, it was not included within a category such as Category:Constellations listed by Lacaille. We have Category:Constellations listed by Ptolemy and Category:Constellations of Petrus Plancius, so it seems natural to have one to group Lacaille's constellations. (Strictly speaking, this is outside the scope of a GA review, so it won't impact my overall assessment.) I'd be happy to set it up, but I'm not familiar with this area so am hesitant to do so. Would this be a useful addition?

depends how useful one finds cats - added anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Prose

• "Its name means "pump" and it specifically represents an air pump." → It it worth adding that this word comes from Latin?

Duly added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Located close to those forming the old constellation of the ship Argo Navis..." → How about... "close to the stars forming..."

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Two star systems have known exoplanets. NGC 2997, a spiral galaxy, and the Antlia Dwarf Galaxy lie within Antlia's borders." → How about this: "Two star systems with known exoplanets—NGC 2997, a spiral galaxy, and the Antlia Dwarf Galaxy—lie within Antlia's borders.

tweaked a bit differently Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "All but one honoured instruments that symbolised the Age of Enlightenment." → Would it be clearer to say "All but one was named in honor of instruments..."?

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "which was universally taken up." → Seems a bit colloquial. How about "...which was universally adopted."

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Though Antlia was technically visible to ancient Greek astronomers, its stars were too faint to have been included in any constellations." → I think it help to clarify that "... included in any ancient constellations."

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Because of this, its main stars have no particular pattern and it is devoid of bright deep-sky objects." → I'm not sure I agree with the causal relationship implied by "Because of this". This sentence and the previous one seem to imply "The stars are too faint. Therefore, they have no pattern and are too faint." But, I don't think the dimness of the stars causes the lack of pattern or absence of deep-sky objects. I think if we delete "Because of this," the sentence would read stronger: "Its main stars have no particular pattern and it is devoid of bright deep-sky objects."

makes sense - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Lacaille and Johann Bode each depicted Antlia differently, as either the single-cylinder vacuum pump used in Papin's initial experiments, or the more advanced double-cylinder version." → The relationship of the depiction style to each man is implied by the order, but could be strengthened by either adding the word "respectively" or reordering entirely (my preference) like: "Lacaille depicted Antlia as a single-cylinder vacuum pump used in Papin's initial experiments, while Johann Bode chose the more advanced double-cylinder version."

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "It is bordered by Hydra the sea snake to the north, Pyxis the compass to the west, Vela the sails to the south, and Centaurus the centaur to the east." → I think this sentence would read clearer with some additional punctuation: "It is bordered by: Hydra, the sea snake, to the north; Pyxis, the compass, to the west; Vela, the sails, to the south; and Centaurus, the centaur, to the east."

Ok, I tried this to liven up the prose and make it a bit less repetitive. Not a fan of all the commas above... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• "... of twelve segments (illustrated in infobox)." → I'm not sure that "infobox" is a term that will be familiar to the typical (non-Wikipedia-editor) reader. Would it help to give more explicit instructions? e.g. "(illustrated in the infobox at top-left)"?

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "...around..." → This term is used 11 times, including twice in the same sentence. Would "approximately" or "about" be better substitutions, at least in those cases where it is used twice in the same sentence?

replaced a few Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• " WASP-66 sunlike star of spectral type F4V." → This is not a sentence. :-)

rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• "A planet with 2.3 times the mass of Jupiter that takes 4 days to complete an orbit was discovered by the transit method in 2012." → I assume this planet was found around WASP-66 (in the preceding sentence), but the wording could be slightly improved to make this connection clearer.

rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The Antlia Dwarf, a 14.8m dwarf spheroidal galaxy that belongs to the Local Group of galaxies." → Also not a sentence. Perhaps it was intended to be joined with the following sentence?

rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• "It was discovered only as recently as 1997." → How about just "It was discovered in 1997."

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re: Seven consecutive paragraphs starting with "The constellation's brightest star, Alpha Antliae..." through to "DEN 1048-3956 is a brown dwarf..." → I find the paragraphing choices here to be somewhat tenuous, and it leads a reader to be confused by the paragraphs. It reads very much like this started as 16 separate paragraphs (each focussed on a single star with 1-3 sentences), and then they were almost arbitrarily merged into 7 paragraphs with very minimal effort to form cohesive paragraphs. Some of the paragraphs have no bridge/transition phrases; others have very minimal bridging phrases which could be improved. None of them have inclusive topic sentences.
  • Paragraph #1: This paragraph discusses Alpha and Delta, with the only bridging text "Located near Alpha..."
  • Paragraph #2: Zeta, Eta, Theta - Bridging text "another double" and "likewise double"
  • Paragraph #3: Epsilon, Iota - Bridging text "At the other end of Antlia", "... likewise an..." (this one has the best bridge text)
  • Paragraph #4: T Antliae, U Antliae, BF Antliae - Bridging text: none
  • Paragraph #5: HR 4049, UX Antliae - Bridging text: none
  • Paragraph #6: HD 93083, WASP-66 - Bridging text: none
  • Paragraph #7: DEN 1048-3956, 2MASS 0939-2448 - Bridging text: none (although both are brown dwarfs)

• My recommendation would be to do one of the following:
  • Divide into 16 separate paragraphs, one per star. It might be a bit choppy, but I think it would be preferred over the current organization.
  • Divide into 16 separate paragraphs, and then format them as a bulleted list. For example, Andromeda (constellation) does this, and I think it is quite clear.
  • Retain the 7 paragraphs (perhaps with some reorganization), and add topic sentences and strong bridge/transition phrases to emphasize the similarities or differences between the stars included in that paragraph. For example, Aries (constellation) follows this pattern.

Have rejigged into four paras - 1st is the two brightest stars as they are both bloated orange giants...and tacked Iota as well as it is a third. These are not common stars. Para two is bright double stars. Para three is variable stars and para four is stars with planets and substeller things such as brown dwarves. I am not a fan of bulleted lists. We have a List of stars in Antlia for that. How does that look? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

-- Saskoiler (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Saskoiler: anything else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, Casliber. With previous reviews, I've tried to complete them within a day or two, but I've been interrupted by some personal matters for several days. I'm trying to complete it today. Thanks for your patience. Saskoiler (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber:, I've completed my review. Please let me know if any of my comments are unclear. I look forward to seeing your responses. Saskoiler (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Saskoiler: on the contrary, thanks for being thorough. I am happy to wait several days and have this article get a good going-over as I am sending it to FAC at some stage... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read through all of the changes. I was delighted to see that you acted on many of my suggestions as-is. In cases where you deviated, I find your alternate solution either better or a suitable compromise. I'm passing this GA review.

Suggestions for FAC

As I have only recently submitted my very first FAC article and am still working through the process, I am certainly not an expert. (That's why I like doing GA reviews... I'm learning much from others.) However, based on my understanding of the criteria, here are a few actions I would pursue if I were trying to push this Antlia article to be one of "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer":

• Images
  • I'd like to see Lacaille's single-cylinder pump sketch, if an apppriately-licensed source can be identified.
  • I'd really like to see a more detailed star chart (compared to the one in the infobox) which could accompany the "Notable features: Stars" section. The infobox chart tells me where some of them are (alpha, epsilon, delta, etc.) but does not place all of them. In a perfect world, this more detailed chart would also give some indication not only of which ones are brightest (as the current image does), but also which are double stars, where the foremost galaxies are, etc. Maybe that's a tough image to produce, but as a reader, that would be ideal for me. (I'm a sucker for diagrams that help me make spatial sense of prose.)
• Non-Western astronomy
  • To be truly comprehensive, it "feels" like this section should be larger. Having said that, I have no idea if source material exists in this area.

These faint constellations are rarely mentioned as they were indistinct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Paragraphing
  • Although I accept your recent changes as being a strong step forward, I think there's still room for improvement. For example, the paragraph which groups the binary and double stars is still in need of a topic sentence to introduce it along the lines of "Antlia contains four binary stars and eight double stars, the brightest of which include ..." (or something like that). Or, if you decided to break it into two paragraphs, one could open #1 with "Antlia contains four binary stars, including Theta Antliae and Zeta Antliae..." and #2 with "Antlia comprises eight double stars, of which Eta Antliae and ..."
• General prose and copyediting
  • Another round or two of copyediting is probably worthwhile. I offered suggestions to the best of my ability, but my astronomy background is not great so it is likely that I've missed areas which could be further fine-tuned.

That's it. I hope I've helped to improve this article. Good luck with the pursuit of FA status. Saskoiler (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Having laypeople and experts gives different perspectives, both of which are helpful... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)