Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Betelgeuse/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 18:03, 16 October 2012 [1].

Betelgeuse

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) & Sadalsuud (talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This has been a massive project done in spurts over the past few years - several folks have buffed it at various times and Sadalsuud has done an amazing job incorporating large segments of fascinating material and new understanding of this star. It's had input from a number of observers and reviewers - and significant discussion on how much context to place in the article, particularly in the Angular size and Circumstellar dynamics sections but we feel to trim any more detracts from the understanding of the article. Also, we've preserved some narrative flow in storyline style in places which I think makes for easier reading. This is one article I feel most proud of being involved in, even though I felt more like a passenger at times next to Sadalsuud driving this, but anyway, read on and offer improvements. I hope folks find it enjoyable and fascinating..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB - is a wikicup entry yes....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportOppose for now, but hopefully issues can be addressed. Very much enjoying the article.

  • "Betelgeuse was measured in the mid-infrared using the Infrared Spatial Interferometer (ISI) producing a limb darkened estimate of 55.2 ± 0.5 milliarcseconds (mas)—a figure entirely consistent with Michelson's findings eighty years earlier". I think what is meant is an estimate of the star's diameter of...etc. Reader needs to be told what this is a measurement of. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "red giants dominate mass return to the galaxy creating opaque outer shells..." Speaking of "opaque"...I think readers are going to need a slightly less concise phrase than "mass return to the galaxy". There is a whole paradigmatic concept embedded in that phrase, about the life cycle of stars and the 'recycling' of mass within galactic-scale bodies, and while I'm pretty sure I knew what it meant, this summary of it leads to there being too much assumed knowledge. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reworded - is that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's plainer English, but it still doesn't seem there to me. What about something like: "The mass that makes up galaxies is recycled as stars are formed and destroyed. For decades astronomers have understood that the outer shells of red giants are central to this process, yet the actual mechanics of stellar mass loss have remained a mystery."hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll pay that - it's often tricky in these situations to figure out just how much to spell out vs assuming how much a reader knows. I've changed it as per above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The photosphere has an extended atmosphere which displays strong lines of emission rather than absorption, a phenomenon which occurs when a star is surrounded by a thick gaseous envelope. This extended gaseous atmosphere has been observed moving both away from and towards Betelgeuse, depending on radial velocity fluctuations in the photosphere." This text is in the "visbility" section, and I wonder if it should be in a later section on atmosphere? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is tricky. I was musing on the properties section, but this seems quite far down the page. As a reader, do you have an idea on where best it might go to help a new reader understand? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need to research Perhaps this section can be reworked so it's more "visibility specific". My understanding is that thick gaseous envelopes affect our "perception" of the star (hence its visibility) through extinction, making it redder. How much, I'm not sure. I'll have to do a little research to clarify this point. Casliber, do you know?--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I understand it - but where should it go.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Having re-read it, I'm not convinced there's a better place for it than where it is, and I'm striking this issue.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a pulsating variable star with sub-classification "SRC", researchers have offered different hypotheses to explain Betelgeuse's volatile choreography..." Either tell the reader the significance of SRC / what that means, or omit it as irrelevant (ie. "As a pulsating variable star, researchers have offered different hypotheses to explain Betelgeuse's volatile choreography...") hamiltonstone (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The specific subclass of semiregular variable is not directly pertinent to the discussion that follows. I will rephrase shortly I've split the sentences to remove the direct sense of causation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section on Angular size, para beginning "Across the Atlantic,...", there are problems. There is a long quote reportedly from Perrin. I think it should be a blockquote, not run into the para, given how long it is. Second, there is no citation for the quote. Third, if it is a quote of the 2004 paper, it is not Perrin, it is Perrin and a bunch of other co-authors. It is unethical and inaccurate to reduce these teams to a single person. Fourth, the quote contains a sentence which does not make grammatical sense: "The upper atmosphere being almost transparent in K and L—the diameter is minimum at these wavelengths where the classical photosphere can be directly seen." Fifth, "transparent in K and L". Huh? A wiklink is not enough - can we turn this term into slightly plainer english? Sixth, I cannot reconcile the final sentence of the para with the text I read in the cited source. Seventh, that source is just a uni media release, and isn't high enough quality, in my view, to support a claim about the acceptance of a theory amongst the astronomy community, even if those words were in the release. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that, given the technical "shorthand" that is used in this quote, the best solution will be to paraphrase most of it. I'll work on that right now and report back for additional comments--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Massively improved, addresing all my points. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for the feedback! While thinking about your comments, it occurred to me that I could bring additional clarity to the infrared distinctions occurring in the paragraph by redesigning the K and L band table to include a new column that will distinguish between 1) Near-Infrared, 2) Mid-Infrared and 3) Far-Infrared. It will only take a few minutes, I'll do that now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in the Angular size section: "with minimal error factors less than 0.04 mas". There's something wrong with this phrase, and I can't work out quite what is meant. I'm not sure if the problem is the apparently redundant "minimal", the use of the plural "factors", a missing word, or all of these, but can editors have another look at this? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I avoided the term "error factor" altogether, since the concern here may be that it sounds "too technical". Now it reads "...with a comparatively insignificant margin of error (< 0.04 mas)." The subtle point here is that other measurements have an error factor of 0.3 mas, so these recent calculations are impressive! Hope this works!--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again: "encompassed a 15-year horizon at one specific wavelength". If what is meant is that they studied the star's angular size over a 15 year period, then say so. "encompassed a 15-year horizon" is ambiguous, could it could alternatively mean that some sort of averaging of 15 years of observations was being undertaken. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! It now reads "period" instead of "horizon".--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That was actually a serious error since angular separation and angular diameter, though related, are distinct concepts astronomically. To avoid redundancy, I chose the phrase apparent size which blue links to the angular diameter article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The properties section makes reference to Betelgeuse being less luminous than Deneb, and refers to the recent reassessment of Deneb's luminosity. This seems to be getting too detailed (the reader doesn't really care that Deneb's luminosity was recently reassessed), but the glaring omission is that the article hasn't told us what Betelgeuse's luminosity is. It is odd to have these figures not being discussed until the next para. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Deneb stuff as I think it interrupts the flow more than adds to understanding. I am just musing on whether we flip paras 1 and 2 in this section in their entirety.. I've rejigged the order. Take a look now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Betelgeuse. The Deneb mention derails things a bit and I think the section flows better with it removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the comparison on rotational velocity with Pleione? Just because it's fast? I don't think that is a useful contrast. Either contrast it with our own star, or with another red giant (ie. another similar star), not some random star that happens to spin really fast. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckle! The real reason I included it was because it was the first GA I ever worked on. The two closest stars in size are Antares and Mu Cephei, but the latter has nothing listed in SIMBAD. The rotational data for Antares is from 1970. Bright Star Catalog 1991 shows it at 20km/s. I will upgrade and change to Antares.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now shows Antares along with the most recent ref.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I'm not sure about "extremely" slow in comparison. The comparison with Pleione showed a truly massive difference, but Antares has 'only' four times the rotational velocity. I think if you just delete "extremely", then we're done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"slow" looked a little funny when left by itself, so I reworded to "much slower than Antares", though tossed up whether we needed some other words such as "compared with" to clarify the two stars' similarity...or should we take that as understood by this point in the article... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"bolometric" is actually redundant as the luminosity of a star is measured across all electromagnetic wavelengths (this contrasts with bolometric magnitude which is measured across all wavelengths vs apparent and absolute magnitudes which are visual spectrum only - see luminosity#Astronomy and Bolometric correction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most investigators showing a preference for a relatively large mass ranging from 10 to 20M☉. One model reports a mass at the lower end of the scale at 14M☉, although a mass ranging from 18 to 20 is more commonplace". Which is the commoner range? 10 to 20, or 18 to 20? These appear inconsistent. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need to research This section was originally drafted in 2010. But Mohamed 2012 may have the answer. I'll research this and update accordingly--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Research done
Unfortunately, Mohamed2012 doesn't provide any additional clarity. So we are faced with a judgment call as editors. On page 2 of Mohamed 2012, the authors put forth a handy table of basic stellar parameters. The first on the list is Mass. But instead of resolving the debate, Mohamed quotes two distinct papers with vastly different parameters, one from Neilson 2011 showing a Mass = 11.6+5.0−3.9M⊙, the second from Smith 2009 showing Mass = 15—20M⊙, which if you were to combine the two would yield a range where Mass ≈ 7.7—20M⊙—clearly not a very good solution for our purposes.
When you study the two underlying papers, however, you notice something interesting. The Neilson2011 document has Haubois as a co-author. Haubois is one of the astronomers who has been working with Perrin and Kervella using the VLT in Chile and arguing that a near-infrared diameter is the more accurate photosperic measurement. So the 11.6M⊙is based on the smaller photospheric measurement of 4.3AU or 955R⊙. Similarly, the 17.5±2.5M⊙is based on the research being done by the Berkeley team and is based on a photospheric measurement of 5.6AU or 1,200R⊙.
Seeing this, I have gone ahead and edited the section on Mass, carrying forward the same theme found at the conclusion of the Angular size discussion. Since 5.5AU is still the de facto standard, I have chosen 17.5±2.5M as the standard Mass, while hinting at the Mass being considerably smaller, should consensus move in the direction of a smaller photospheric measurement. Instead of using a range as Mohamed and Smith did of 15—20M⊙, I have chosen the midpoint of 17.5M⊙, that way achieving the simplicity we're looking for.
--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thinking on this is that for the lay reader, "15-20M⊙" is probably more understandable than "17.5±2.5M⊙". I need to see what we've done in other articles though...good to sort out the numbers though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that table in Mohamed2012 too and reached a similar conclusion. I agree with Casliber that a range is probably the better way of expressing it - another option may be to directly rely on the Smith et al article, if either of you have access to it. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Smith article is online here. Interestingly, it states, "At a distance of 152–197 pc, the star’s luminosity is roughly 0.9–1.5×105 L�, implying an initial mass of 15–20 M�" - note the word, "initial". Hence this might explain the discrepancy Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the material relating to mass is in better shape. In particular, the paragraph on "properties" is now clear about there being an unresolved debate, and different methodologies. What I'm not happy with is how that is currently summarised in the star infobox at the start of the article. The infobox should signal to the reader the significant uncertainty around Betelgeuse, not hide it. I think a range should be put there. Suggest it be done as 7.7—20M⊙, with Mohamed2012 as the ref, since that source has clear links back to the two major (competing) schools of thought.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That solution makes a lot of sense to me as it is the clearest expression of NPOV. So I changed it and then made a few changes to the text. The sentence in the text that starts with "Smith and colleagues calculated it..." still needs some work though. I'm not sure what the intent was behind the edit so I'll leave it as is for now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the range? It was wierd as it calculated the upper limit as possibly 5 solar masses more but lower as only 3.9 solar masses less...this was the easiest way I thought of saying it. I'm open to suggestions though... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assymetrical range isn't wierd if the underlying formulae involve logarithmic / power scales. An equal error range in, say, percentage terms (plus/minus 20percent for example) will produce unequal quantities of solar masses. The 7.7 to 20 solution for the infobox seems like a good one to me.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has always been a tricky issue. In 2010, the Betelgeuse article used a beach ball as a metaphor, but did not provide any references. Nevertheless, the idea was intriguing, but needed some rigor... hence the subsequent calculations in the Notes section. But once you run the numbers and come up with solid ratios, you're stuck with what metaphors to use. Unfortunately no sports analogy works (cricket, baseball, etc)... hence mangos and pearls were chosen. Originally the mango article only had the photo of the Australian mango with its round shape, yellow color, and correct ratio - so not a bad analogy. But then other mango pictures started to appear all over the place... Yuk! Yuk! For simplicity sake, I suppose we can delete the word "Australian" and just say mango, leaving it up the imagination of the reader. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just changed it to "mango". :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet the actual mass of the star is believed to be no more than 18 to 19 Suns (M☉), with certain mass loss estimates projected at one to two Suns since birth". Two things: is the mass range really that precise according to sources? That is very narrow. Also, re "certain" - does the article mean "some" or "definite"? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once I've done the research on Mohamed 2012, I will rework this sentence as well. To a first time reader, all these Mass estimates are confusing, I'm sure. So it makes sense to clarify the issue and present an cohesive concept, even if all the refs provide different estimates. I will report back when this is done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it now reads <=20M⊙, which is consistent with the starbox and Smith ref that is used.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes. delinked some Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
water-vapor dehyphenated Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The VLA images also showed this lower-temperature gas progressively decreasing in temperature as it extends outward—the existence of which, although unexpected, turns out to be the most abundant constituent of Betelgeuse's atmosphere". This sentence, if it can be called that, doesn't make sense, and there's a tense change part way through.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
split and converted to present tense Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the heliopause estimated at about 100 AU, the size of this outer shell is almost fourteen times the size of the Solar System." Can I just check - does the term "heliopause" by definition refer only to our solar system because, if not, the construction of this para would suggest the heliopause of Betelgeuse, which of course would not make sense. Alternative: "With our sun's heliopause estimated at..." hamiltonstone (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not quite sure that is the case but I think so, the source isn't entirely clear on the shape....now where is Sadalsuud.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Given the shape of a bow shock, however, "wide" is the better adjective. It now reads "...1 parsec wide". In fact, I've noticed that other articles will often use the analogy of a boat wake to help readers visualize a bow shock. Would that be useful here? I tried finding a photo. There is a good one on Betelgeuse from ESA, but none in the public domain. The only ones in Commons are for other stars; This one might work! Thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just generally, i sometimes get a bit lost by the science in the later subsections of "properties", but I do think they are generally well-written, and it is mostly just a matter of concentrating. Couple of things in the supernova section. "Since the oldest subgroup in the association has an approximate age of 12 million years, the more massive stars likely had sufficient time to evolve to this stage." Which stage? I didn't get this.
blowing up...rewritten to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pluralised Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magnitude differences with respect to the primary, measured at 656.3 (Hα) and 656.8 nm (red continuum), were 3.4 and 3.0 for the close component and 4.6 and 4.3 for the distant component". This is one of those sentences where I feel like I needed about two or three other sentences beforehand to tell me first, what this sentence means and second, why I should care. Also, why are we talking about "components" rather than "companions"? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then there is reference to something called "periastron", and really, I feel the whole "star system" section could be reworked. If I read this correctly, It can be summarised thus: "Since 1985, the existence of one or more close stellar companions to Betelgeuse has been hypothesised. Although evidence exists of periodic variation in physical attributes that might be consistent with the existence of other bodies in the Betelgeuse system, they remain unconfirmed, and astronomers continue to debate their presence". That, together with the rather elegant existing final para of the section, may be all that's needed. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You got it! Let me rethink this section and I'll get back to you. My original intent at the time of writing was to clarify what I thought was a lot of speculation/confusion on different websites as to whether Betelgeuse had companions or not. People could not understand why the finding was announced with a lot of fanfare and then nothing for years, with everyone left in the dark. In conclusion, I probably went overboard. I'll rework it.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Hamiltonstone, really it is one study which offered some intriguing results on the possibility of a companion but has not been duplicated, so we might be giving it prominence it doesn't deserve.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's now chopped in half, and the image deleted. To address your points above, I don't disagree with what each of you are saying. So if you'd like to make this section even more concise, that's fine with me. My only point is that this issue, like every other issue we've had to deal with regarding Betelgeuse has (at least) 2 schools of thought. So NPOV to me suggests we do our best to present both sides of the argument. As Haubois points out in 2009: We think we're seeing bright spots due to convection, but the possibility of stellar companions can't be ruled out. The way I've got it now, you can see the evolution in thought with references. So if anyone wants to research it further, they've got a starting point.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much clearer and more concise now. Hamiltonstone should be along soon.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on the same subject, I have carefully re-read the section, and can see no meaningful link between the text and the image caption: "Images from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope show that asymmetrical envelopes can trigger the formation of tightly knit binary star systems". It confirmed for that the section should be radically simplified, and my feel is that that particular image and caption can go. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "spelling and pronunciation", there is a spelt-out source for the first four pronunciations for the first four options, but just a footnote for the fifth. I'm not sure why that is. I'm a bit concerned that the fifth option relies on a source for pronunciation, that is almost immediately contradicted a couple of sentences later regarding the translation (source 120: "the etymon of Betelgeuse is the Arabic phrase Ibt al Jauzah, which means "Armpit of the Central One."" WP article shortly thereafter: "Betelgeuse is often mistranslated as "armpit of the central one"". But then, the source for the latter is also a 'popular science' source, as was the source for the former... Does this need more careful work? Anyway, consider dropping the fifth pronunciation optin, unless there's a better source? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
removed fifth pronunciation, as it is only a minor variant and agree a better source would be good Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, they're a little much, I have to agree. Let me start with the short answer, then we can look at each note separately. Point #1: I don't think the notes constitute original research since they are all routine calculations–high-school math, and a few formulas from Wikipedia. Point #2: Betelgeuse, when you start to research it, is a confusing star. There is a ton of information out there, much of it does not agree, a lot of it is dated, and research is proceeding so rapidly that even the experts don't agree. So the intent from the beginning was not to give the reader a "fait-accompli" and thus add to the confusion, but rather a rich mosaic of the important points, so they could make sense of it all. In a few instances, notes were needed. Point #3: I, as a non-scientist, wanted to understand this stuff–hence the use of analogies like Wembley Stadium, the mango and noctilucent clouds. If you tell me that a star has a density of 1.576 × 10−5 kg/m3, I have no idea what that means - hence the use of analogy. Unfortunately, scientists seldom if ever use such analogies, so there are no references. The best you can do is high-school math; that way the reader can follow your logic, if they want to. Now for each note:
Note 1. Apparent Size Table. In trying to understand all the conflicting information on the star's diameter, I created a spreadsheet. Once done, I thought "Hmmm! Maybe readers will find this useful." If you think it's overkill, we can just delete it.
Note 2. Betelgeuse Radius. This is a really valuable note. Right now, there are many articles on the web saying that Betelgeuse has a radius equal to the Jovian orbit of 5.5 AU. See APOD 2010. If Perrin's hypothesis is right however, we might see 4.3 AU real soon. So at least with this note, the reader can understand why such a vast difference.
Note 3. Speed of contraction. I just used some routine math to get a sense of how fast a photosphere could contract, given what was observed. We can omit this information altogether. It's not that critical.
Note 4. Luminosity. Every article you read on Betelgeuse "out there" quotes a different luminosity figure. To me, that's confusing. So that's why I provide the standard luminosity formula so readers can make sense of the vast divergences in the articles they read.
Note 5. The mango analogy. This is my favorite one. I just love visualizing myself inside of Wembley Stadium and imagining the Earth as a one-millimeter Pearl. It's experiential, and here's the math to back it up.
Note 6. Betelgeuse Volume reduction. Once again, I just wanted to understand what it meant if Betelgeuse's radius contracted, what that would mean in terms of volume. Wow! 680 million suns in 15 years. That's mind boggling!
Note 7. Noctilucent cloud analogy. Finally, just another attempt to take something esoteric like atmospheric density and relate it to something on Earth.
--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck my concern on this issue. This article stretches what we might usually expect in terms of notes and calculations. Although the calculations look fairly technical, however, they are confined to multiplication and division, do not rely on models or more complex formulas, and are consistent with what is written in popular science articles about the star, as well as with the peer reviewed literature. They are needed because the peer reviewed literature does not convert angular diameter to absolute diameter, even though the popular science reporting of that literature regularly does so. The approach taken by editors here simply lays out the calculations that those popular science writers must have made, but did not explicitly state. The calculations here are superior because they make explicit the range of values involved, rather than just choosing one number arbitrarily (which is what some of the popular science pieces do (such as this).hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stephen R. Wilk has proposed the constellation of Orion could have represented the Greek mythological figure Pelops..." There is no citation at all for this sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to be a blurring of the line between etymology and mythology section content. Also, strictly speaking, doesn't "etymology" refer to the derivation of a particular word? Accordingly, "etymology" should discuss only the origin / interpretations of "Betelgeuse" and its direct variants. However the last para of etymology, as well as some sentences under mythology, appear to be about the names given to the star in other languages and cultures. Perhaps create a new subsection titled "other names", into which you can aggragate Persian, Coptic, Hawaiian, Lacandon etc (all alt names for which there is no substantive discussion of mythology), and then the (slightly shorter) mythology section? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]
split off alternate names as sep subsection, and also fixed ref, which got seprated in para separation... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it further, and think it's OK now, but you might want to check my edits. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
looks fine Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: in the "details" section of the star infobox, the footnote tag sometimes appears after the symbol or expression for the unit of measurement, and sometimes before. Not sure if there is a good reason for that: if not, render them consistent.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it is in the formatting of the starbox template. We'll need to raise this with the wikiproject as a whole (and someone who is good at fiddling with templates!) and see how it can be tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, I remember raising that exact issue with you a few years ago at Starbox dysfunction. I remember you posting something at WikiProject Astronomy the same day, to which there was some meaningful response. It was pretty complicated, if I remember. Anyway, I tried to find the archive but could not. I guess it's a "detail" that fell through the cracks. (Sorry for the bad pun.)--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
periods from non-sentence captions removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Position_Alpha_Ori.png: what source(s) form the basis of this image?
the image was made using Skychart which is appropriately licenced freeware. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if it is 1300 years old isn't that just public domain due to age? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but afaik it has to be specifically tagged. Done with PD-old-100. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ive been watching the work on this article over the summer, and to me the editors have done a great job in making it accessable. I've been reading it, slowly, and for the most part I dont think a thicko like me is excluded from the audience its aimed at. For that well done, this is a very good thing. Ignoring technalities being dealt with by Hamiltonstone above (because I have to, because its beyond me), the article is very clearly written. The nominators are lucky to have such a detailed and hands on review as they are gettig from Hamiltonstone, Im looking forward to supporting when they are done. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First look Credit for the massive amount of work, and for some genuinely good writing. Unfortunately, there are lots of MoS errors, and I think these need sorting before I go through the text again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is massive overlinking in the main text (i.e excluding the lead and captions). The duplicate link detector found so many, even ignoring piped links, that I decided life was too short to list them all. Units in particular are sometimes linked more than once in the same sentence!
I've delinked almost all (yes there were alot!), but left a couple where words are different or the links are far apart and I thought the link was a particularly pertinent or useful one Casliber (talk ·contribs) 07:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the discussion of Overlinking in Lead section and so made an effort to minimize the amount of links in the lead, leaving the more technical terms as blue links. It's a bit of a judgment call. Almost all blue links that were deleted reoccur later in the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check BE/AE, I assume it's the latter, but colour/color both appear, there may be others
Yikes! forgot about that. I think we'll go with Americanizing the article - 1 x colour converted, no -ise verbs found. Not sure of any other BE words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I wouldn't give imperial conversions, but if you feel that it's necessary, you must convert all the metric units, including long distances and temperatures.
agree - think I removed all imperial units now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astronomy Magazine — I think you mean Astronomy magazine (with italics, magazine isn't part of the title)
done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are near-infrared and the red star italicised?
no idea - stray italics removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wembley image looks like an excuse to get a nice picture in, especially since you have another size comparison image. Of course, if you can persuade me there's a mango in the middle of the pitch...
The image actually relates to representations made in the Density section of the article, and specifically Note2, which substantiates the ratios for this comparison. In the beginning, the analogy was made to a beach ball in a stadium, not a mango. Unfortunately, there were no refs. But the idea was intriguing. So the intent here was multidimensional: 1) give readers at all levels an "experience" of the sheer size of this star, 2) make it rigorous - hence the use of simple multiplication and division in Note2, and 3) take a hotly debated issue like size and translate it into an experience people can relate to. The problem is that when you make mathematical rigor your #1 reference point, finding the right analogies becomes the challenge. No sports analogy worked (i.e. baseball, softball, soccer ball) - hence the choice of mangoes and pearls. If we compare this image to the one next to it, my sense is that it does a remarkable job of conveying to the reader the "experience" of size. Visualizing yourself sitting in that stadium with the Earth the size of a 1mm pearl really conveys that, and to me makes the article fun as well as rigorous.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I'm totally convinced, but it's not a big deal, so I'll let it go unless any other reviewer picks it up. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, your non-template notes/refs (aren't notes usually separated anyway?) should end in full stops like the templated refs
I only found the two, and added a stop to the one which lacked it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also" should not include items wikilinked in the text
I removed some for which Betelgeuse was only included for comparison, and have reintegrated others into article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

second round I was hoping to support this time round, but I don't think we are quite there yet. Sorry to be such a pain, but here we go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looks fine Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reddish-tinted — to me, the -ish and tinted serve the same purpose, I'd prefer one or the other, but not a big deal, leave as is if you want
removed tint Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 M☉ and 10 solar (sic) — consistency please.
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference dating is all over the place, largely because the usual practice of just giving the year has been abandoned. We have a mixture of d/m/y, m/y and just year, and different orders eg 2000, December and 18 May 2009
accessdates should all be d/m/y, others year (or d/m/y) only. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference style seems a random mixture of sentence and title cases
All title case now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 and ref 48 are notes, and should be with the other notes in the Notes section. they are not references
Moved 'em. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "between 0.2 and 1.2, the widest range of any first-magnitude star" Two questions: first, what does "first-magnitude star" mean?
Good question! I think what we need here is a blue link to an article on magnitude. Unfortunately, none of the articles on magnitude provide a sub-heading that would address this question quickly for the reader. Give me a day or two to rework another article. Upon completion, I'll blue link "first-magnitude" and report back here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I upgraded the Magnitude section of the Luminosity article with a brief explanation of magnitude since the days of Hipparchus and created a table with the whole focus on simplicity. First-magnitude star is now blue linked.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, with the apparent magnitude varying so widely, how has it earned the title of "the eighth brightest star in the night sky"? Does this ranking system place Betelgeuse based on its brightest, dimmest, or average magnitude?
On average, this is detailed in the body of the text - do you think we should work in the word "average" somehow? Also, having some trouble figuring out what to link "first magnitude" to.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a lot of thought to this issue, tried reworking it, only to realize my rework made the lead paragraph more cumbersome. The ranking of stellar brightness is actually a complex issue, as it relates to 4 concepts: 1) the inclusion/exclusion of the Sun as a star, 2) which band is used to measure brightness, 3) whether the star is part of a star system or not and 4) brightness variations. The most elegant solution to this problem, I think, is to direct the reader to List of brightest stars, which we've done, to which I have now added the word "average" in the first sentence, so there's no confusion. Hope this works!--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The star ... is one of the largest and most luminous known stars." Does "luminous" mean the same thing as "brightest"? If not, a link, definition, or rephrasing here would be helpful. If so, why does this sentence mention something that was already covered in detail in the previous paragraph?
A star can be bright because it is close by (like Sirius) luminosity is amount of light (well, acutally all electromagnetic radiation) a star radiates) - a link to Luminosity#Astronomy is prudent...and done Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • "Its distance in 2008 was estimated at 640 light-years" Distance from where? Presumably from Earth or from the Sun, but this would benefit from clarification.
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—which also includes the late type O and B stars in Orion's belt, Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka—" I don't think it is necessary to include this factoid in the lead. It doesn't really enrich the reader's overall understanding, which is the purpose of the lead. At the very least, I would trim it down to "—which also includes the stars in Orion's belt—", though I would prefer to delete it altogether.
oooh, hard choice. I do like associating the OB association with some familiar objects but can see your point. Have deleted the minimum for the moment and considering the other Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticing that this item has yet to be crossed out. Just re-read this sentence and I would tend to agree with the above. An OB association is an abstruse concept for most. I kinda like the familiarity of Orion's belt as well, as it helps the average reader get oriented quickly.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I activated man mode and vanquished the offending detail. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the supergiant is expected to proceed through its expected life cycle" I never would have expected to see "expected" twice in this sentence; it was unexpected.
Whoops, removed (like "Paris in the the spring" really....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the star remains a perplexing mystery." Poetic, but not particularly encyclopedic. Perhaps "the star is difficult to study accurately" or "many characteristics of the star are not yet known with certainty." would be better?
rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the former - but I changed to "irregular shape" Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I had liked the slightly eccentric original text :-( hamiltonstone (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the problem here is one of ambiguity, which I can see would be problematic. The phrase "eccentric behavior" was originally chosen to summarize a number of irregularities: 1) the star's random flux 2) the irregular protrusion of gigantic convection cells, some as big as the star itself, unusual bright spots of undetermined life span, mass loss that is "episodic" and so difficult to predict or measure, as well as potential "eccentricities" in the star's shape, especially when viewed in the visible or mid-infrared. If we want to limit this sentence to one irregularity, I would propose its flux. Hence "...orbiting within this circumstellar nebula contributing to the star's overall flux."--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sounds good, I mean "eccentric behavior" was ok, but I couldn't find anywhere to link it to..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a little time to think about this. Two concluding thoughts: 1) the original problem was the ambiguity associated with the word "eccentric", so that's been changed to "enigmatic" and 2) "behavior" speaks to many potential consequences of stellar companions, and so I think it's the better word here. Also, the star itself has been an enigma for over a century, so it my opinion this concluding statement does a good job of wrapping up the lead. Hope that works for everyone.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, the only major section that is not represented in the lead is Ethnological attributes. I would suggest inserting a snippet either in the first paragraph of the lead (which is the smallest of the three) or the beginning of the third paragraph (which is already focused on timeline stuff).
Added most generally accepted etymology now to para 1 Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    1. The main problem of this article is its style, which is not encyclopedic. Sentences like "Across the Atlantic, another team of astronomers working in the near-infrared and led by Guy Perrin of the Observatoire de Paris" are not formal as required by MOS. This is style is more appropriate for a blog then for an encyclopedia article. In addition this sentence is inaccurate. From Perrin being the first author of the paper or the communicating author, does not follow that he led this study. And not all coauthors of this study work work in Europe, so "Across the Atlantic" is inappropriate. There are plenty of such statements in the article (see, for instance, "In 2011, Keiichi Ohnaka from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy produced a third estimate in the near-infrared corroborating Perrin's numbers"—Ohnaka is just the first author of the paper). You should decide what style of citations you want to use. It can be either footnotes but without mentioning the authors. Or you can mention the first author like "Ohnaka et al., 2007". However, the style currently in use is both unencyclopedic and and inaccurate.
Good point now I think about it, one assumes the first author is the lead author but yes I recall publications where this is more complicated and not strictly as it seems, hence rewriting is in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, as far as tone goes, we might not be a blog, but neither are we a scientific journal, and much astronomical material is extremely dry and can be heavy going to read as well as difficult to understand. This is about writing in a way to make it as accessible as possible to the lay reader while not sacrificing accuracy. Writing "Ohnaka et al., 2007" is somewhat jarring to the flow of reading. I do concede about accuracy and we will double check references to ensure this is so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't think the MOS requires "formal" language. It requires plain English. FAC requires prose that is engaging, even brilliant. Overly formal language doesn't necessarily achieve that goal. However, the reference to "led by Guy Perrin" (and other instances like this) are a problem, and should be fixed. I caught one, but obviously missed others. Agree with Ruslik that solution needs to be implemented throughout as required, and add that other solutions are also possible such as "Ohnaka and others [don't need to mention year]". hamiltonstone (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this press release identifies Kervella and Ohnaka as the leaders of their respective teams, and I've tried aligning the second para of Circumstellar dynamics section to reflect that. I tossed up whether to place "and colleagues" or "et al." in the "Kervella noted," segment, or whether that bit implied this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this press release confirms Lobel as the leader of a team - mentioned in para 3 of Variability section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this press release has Townes doing just about all the theorising and discussing, doesn't describe him as the leader but pretty well implies as much. Will change one instance of "led by Townes" if need be (?). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "Across the Atlantic..." and am looking for sources describing Perrin's role so we can accurately portray his role. I have to sleep now. More in the morning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On this and this page, Perrin and Haubois are described as the co-leaders of the Paris Observatory team in ~2009, but 2004 predates Haubois (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page notes Perrin was leading the team in 2004 researching Mira, but I can't find one for the 2004 Betelgeuse stuff yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page describes Karovska as the announcer of the possible companion(s) - I think this is good to keep her name in as it shows there was a single team suggesting companions which has not had supporting findings to date elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think every study is written in a plain English prose which corresponds to its scientific reporting elsewhere - e.g. "X et al." is "X and colleagues" (i.e. one main author kept, or two in some cases as per original sources and mentions elsewhere), and multiauthor articles are noted at first mention accordingly Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The second problem is too much unnecessary details. Take, for instance, "Diameter" section. Now it purports to review all available original research (primary sources) in this area and makes some conclusions that, in my opinion, are unwarranted (like "In conclusion, the current debate between measurements in the mid-infrared, which suggest a possible expansion and contraction of the star, and the near-infrared, which advocates a relatively constant photospheric diameter, is yet to be resolved"). The article should be based on secondary sources (reviews), including reviews of the previous research provided in the introductory sections of original research papers. This section (Diameter) can, in fact, be considerably shortened. It only needs to report basic facts: the diameters of Betelgeuse is difficult to establish because the star does not have a sharp boundary and the measured diameter varies with wavelength and time.
Ruslik_Zero 09:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is a guideline and I agree the article should not contain any original research. Unfortunately relying exclusively on secondary sources in more esoteric articles leads to comprehensiveness issues. For instance, I don't think "diameters of Betelgeuse is difficult to establish because the star does not have a sharp boundary and the measured diameter varies with wavelength and time." is sufficient or insightful when the topic of its diameter has been researched extensively (albeit concluding with uncertainty) so why not enlighten the reader as to some of the results people have come up with? I admit we have to take great care if we do do this to avoid synthesis and the latter needs to be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that makes Betelgeuse so interesting, and the article quite long, is the star's complex and elusive nature, while at the same time being one of the most obvious and well-known stars in the night sky. I would be disappointed to see the article simplified in a way that reduces the sense of this star's mystery and complexity, within the confines of sticking, per Casliber, to WP:OR. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being so late on this and thanks a lot for all the work on this article, but I oppose promotion at the moment on style grounds. I printed this out to get a sense how the article stands on its own and I will mention some of the issues (big and minor) I have come across so far going through the article (I have not checked sources in detail, the referencing looks very good):
That's fine. I was taken aback with the tag but your comments make sense so we are tackling them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • uncommon words like "vertex" and "asterism" should not be used without explanation when they are first mentioned - if this disturbs the lead one should reword and leave the explanation in the article body instead. I believe readers shouldn't have to leave the article merely to understand the lead. The same is true for "limb darkening".
substituted 'corner' for 'vertex' as for the purposes of looking in the sky, no greater distinction is needed. Will look into the other issue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed asterism as not integral to understanding of three stars making a triangle pattern Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its distance in 2008 was estimated ..." - I'm certain this sentence doesn't want to specify the distance in this year but only give the year the measurement was made, so I think "Its distance was estimated in 2008 ..." is a better choice
done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having been ejected from ..." - the wording of the sentence seems embellishing, saying "racing" instead of "moving" and using "supersonic", which is not that meaningful in space. Letting the facts speak for themselves is a much better style.
good point/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reintroduced the word "supersonic" as it is used throughout the primary literature. See: Mohamed 2012, Introduction to Stellar Winds and Bow shock. I'm no astrophysicist, so I will defer to others on this issue. But it appears that this is an important distinction when describing stellar winds.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observational history

Nascent discoveries

  • "... based on the then-current parallax value ..." - "then-current" is bad style, like "then-President Clinton", and can be removed because there is no need to explain that people in 1920, which is mentioned, used a parallax value from that time
good point/removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—a central theme which would be the focus of scientific inquiry for almost a century." that commentary is either original research or needs an attribution to make clear that we are not drawing conclusions on our own
I removed it as I let the facts speak for themselves. Plenty of subsequent discussion clearly shows how long and involved measurements have been. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1950s and '60s saw important ..." - decades are not abbreviated like that in other parts of the article, so I suggest writing the full 1960s here (it's not much of an abbreviation anyway)
good point/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the name Stratoscope I believe is so uncommon that it needs a short explanation or be described outright
Described in next sentence -is that close enough? Or shall we reorganise so both second explanations are subordinate to the first mentions of the stratoscope and the book? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would reorganise but at least an explanation exists now.
  • "This book taught a generation of astrophysicists ..." - remove as editorializing or source in whose opinion the book was that important.
The words are used in the source, but it is a but flowery so reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both developments would prove to have a significant impact on our understanding ..." - says who? and "our understanding" is unobjective. unless this is sourced and stated more plainly I think this sentence adds nothing.
Given that all discoveries help our understanding of stars, the sentence pretty much states the obvious and there is nothing special about these in that respect. Hence on thinking about it I've removed the sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aperture masking

  • I can't see aperture masking explained, however briefly, in this section
The whole section, I think, lacks cohesion. The theme encompasses various breakthroughs in imaging technology, with "aperture masking" being but one. I should have a rework done in the next day or two, with each of your points duly incorporated.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed section and will be including some new material. This whole section was inherited from as far back as 5 years ago. So I decided to go back and re-read the primary literature from 1970-1990, highlighting major contributions. "Imaging breakthroughs" is more effective nomenclature, allowing for a better lead sentence to describe the section. Will post here when completed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now complete, I think, with each issue addressed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • is "fringe-tracking" related to the subject of aperture masking? it's quite unclear as it is written now - that should be explained or omitted if it does not add to understanding
Omitted.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... ultraviolet image of comparable resolution ..." - is the comparable resolution to the infrared images in the previous paragraph? is comparable the right word if the wavelength is different?
Clarified and added ref.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The image was taken at ultraviolet wavelengths since ground-based instruments cannot produce images ..." - that Hubble has a higher resolution for UV does not explain why UV was chosen. if rewritten, the sentence could explain why Hubble was chosen over a ground-based telescope (better resolution in UV) but no explanation for using UV in of itself has been provided by the sentence as it stands now - that explanation would be in the physics of the object, not technical or in the atmosphere, no?
Rewrote sentence. Added ref. Hope this works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent studies

  • "... witnessed major advances on multiple fronts, ..." - too vague/general, redundant since they are listed directly thereafter anyway, should be removed
removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the dawn of the millennium ..." - why not give the date? this is flowery, unencyclopedic language
done. funny how you sometimes don't see these after reading the article 30-40 times. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, on June 9, 2009, ..." - using "nevertheless" implies a connection to the content of the previous sentence - did Townes mention the discrepancy named there? if he merely worked on the same issue and a new fact is introduced, "nevertheless" should be removed.
'Nevertheless' removed. Although the two are discussed, the size reduction is not contrastive to the material before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... abstruse dynamics of Betelgeuse's extended atmosphere." - is abstruse meant as complicated or "confusing"? "confusing" would have to be sourced to someone as it is an opinion. I suggest rewording for clarity.
changed to the plainer "complex" Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... outer shells of red giants are central to this process, ..." - one should mention how they are central, otherwise this imparts no real information, I think
changed to "...and red giants are major contributors." contemplating whether we need "of matter" or "of material" after "contributors" Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... showed a vast plume of gas being ejected into the surrounding atmosphere ..." - I think we should mention the plume is ejected by Betelgeuse, or maybe it's just me who paused and considered this ;) the more clarity the easier it is to follow the text
added "from the star" to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last sentence of the paragraph is bad style, sensationalistic

Visibility

  • describing Orion's Belt as "famous" is POV unless you use attribution - the facts that follow establish the ease of spotting Betelgeuse much better
good point, 'famous' removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once May arrives, ..." - why not "In May"? the plain language is more concise, too
trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... glimpsed but briefly ..." - again, why not "seen only briefly"? the current form is so poetic, doesn't fit with the scientific subject
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parallax

  • why is parallax sorted under visibility? they go together, but not strictly, no?
I could see swapping "parallax" and "Variability" sections - did you have a better idea for location? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I guess it's just as well if we keep it as it is. Hekerui (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Solving this enigma holds the key to understanding other stellar parameters ..." - why not "knowing the distance helps improve the accuracy of other stellar parameters ..." - an enigma holding a key is unencyclopedic, imo
rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the treatment of parallax measurements is great, but I think the second sentence in the paragraph about Gaia has too much detail not related to Betelgeuse.
Agreed. I removed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text implies that Gaia's ability to observe faint objects will help improve the parallax measurement for Betelgeuse, but the text already mentioned it as one of the brightest stars, so its not clear how this improvement would help with Betelgeuse
The segment of text preceding is misleading. The clear benefit is much greater precision of parallax, but I removed the after bit anyway as Betelgeuse is not specifically discussed on that page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Variability

  • why use the words "volatile choreography"? volatile does not seem the right choice when the star was just described as semiregular, and choreography is fancy way of saying pulsating? I don't mean to drain life out of the text but this seems over the top to me.
I changed it to "Betelgeuse's pulsations and their rhythm" -was tempted to use "rhythmicity" or "periodicity" in there somewhere but later settled on plainer words. Let me know if too clunky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... which because of their number produce a relatively constant flux." - that's not obvious, how does the number influence the steadiness of the flux? also, "which because of their number" is weird prose imo
  • maybe "monster granules" should be put in quotation marks, as it was coined by Schwarzschild and is colloquial?
I changed it to the less colloquial "gigantic", I find quotation marks a tad jarring to prose and try to eliminate them if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "gigantic" as well, the measurements that follow immediately afterwards make the proportion clear enough.
I am ok with that as the first mention of the cells I changed "monster" to "huge", I think some emphatic adjectives are good here and there. You can see scientists write words like "tremendous" in the press releases too Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last two sentences of the paragraph are copied almost word per word from the press release, so they are copyright infringement and need to be rewritten
Yikes! Rejigged now and distanced from source. It's such a great visual analogy that I felt it was good to keep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter

  • the first sentence does not do much except reiterate that this is the third subsection of the chapter - I for one wondered for a bit what exactly was meant with challenges - I think the sentence is not useful
Good point as we've mentioned it's hard to measure a few times, hence I removed the sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each wavelength measures something different" that sounds vague without describing what they measure differently (or mentioning that this is explained in detail later)
changed to "as the star's apparent size differs depending on the wavelength used." (was wondering if I could do away with the "apparent") Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether the radio image would not be better positioned near text that mentions radio measurements. how is the "(pre-Harper)" qualifier relevant for the image? I don't really get what the infrared image of Betelgeuse, Meissa and Bellatrix illustrates.
  • "The current debate revolves around which wavelength—the visible, near-infrared (NIR) or mid-infrared (MIR)—..." - these are not wavelengths but ranges of wavelengths/parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and "current" should be avoided as it becomes outdated
changed to "which part of the electromagnetic spectrum" and "current" removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... published in 2009 in Astronomy Magazine ..." - the sentence is not clear to which of the mentioned facts that refers - it's not Bester giving that estimate but the estimate itself, no? I see no evidence that the two sources used Bester, though, although it's plausible
  • "The study also put forth an explanation as to why ... produce different diameters." - the explanation follows so I suggest using a colon at the end of the sentence to make that clear in the reading flow
Interesting. I'd never thought of using a colon like this, but having just read Colon_(punctuation)#Syntactical-deductive I feel a new sense of grammatical mastery I didn't have a few minutes ago and have inserted a colon...:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... problematic since each wavelength produces a different view of the star, ..." - "different view" is vague to me
I removed the sentence as we have already mentioned this a few paras above (about different wavelengths) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Properties

  • "last decade" is not a lasting description - I replaced one instancce but I'm not sure how best to rephrase the other
changed to "since 2001", as "recent" is no good. :Latest" would have same problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the photospheric temperature is somewhat uncertain." - "somewhat" is a vague word, does it mean "not very" or "quite a bit"? I think we can dispense with it
I removed vague adverb Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... extended atmosphere, a factor where even moderately strong fields ..." - I think this "a factor where" is (at least to me) opaque. maybe that could be made into two sentences?

Space Motion

  • why not call the section "Motion", because where else but space does a star move?
good point/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The kinematics of Betelgeuse are not easily explained." - I think this is a bad start for an explanation, especially in an encyclopedia, I would suggest "complex" or something else
good point/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... is roughly 10 million years". - is this projection in the next sentence that far into the past? if so, one could make that clearer
I added the word "corresponding" to the next sentence...do you think that links them ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • the third sentence describes the projection as "an implausible hypothesis", but it's not a hypothesis, because it is a conclusion following a calculation, maybe "scenario" instead (or something else, can't think of a good word right now)?
I went concrete and just used the word "location"...that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • "..., but has evolved rapidly due to its unusually high mass." - I think "unusually" is not a good word to use, all the supergiants have a high mass and the source does not point out the mass as an anomaly, unless I overlooked that (it also discards a distance that would make B overluminous)
'unusually' removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extreme luminosity" - that would apply to the supernova more than the star, it's not a good word choice imo
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Density

  • "most ethereal" - why not "least dense" if that is meant?
Hmmm, thinking about this - I like the idea of some adjective that shows how extremely thin it is. "Vacuous" would be ok if it didn't have other connotations WRT people.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "one of the least dense stars known" imply that sufficiently?
  • "a sphere so imposing" - this sounds more like "awe-inspiring" than a synonym for "large", I suggest removing it, the facts showing this follow right after
trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the image caption "the air in the stadium is far more dense than the star itself" seems to refer to the Sun mentioned in the previous sentence, but B is meant, no?
yup, Betelgeuse it is Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... average density of this stellar mystery ..." - "stellar mystery" is not objective
removed "of this stellar mystery" as is clear which star we're talking about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstellar dynamics

  • "... argued it was the likely cause in evolved supergiants ..." - I thought: the cause for what? perhaps reiterate "mass loss", because even though one can understand from context it seems the sentence is missing a part
I moved the "mass loss" from the preceding sentence into this one (I couldn't just add it as I couldn't face four consecutive sentences with "mass loss" in them. I figured the "however" in sentence two was enough of a link for that one Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mysteries" - that is again used, I suggests a more grounded wording because not understanding something well does not a mystery make. I suggest questions that remain to be answered or something similar; "mystery" appears again in the next paragraph
made less mysterious Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Wolf-Rayet star" should be explained briefly, because it doesn't help the flow to bring up something new unexplained
This is tricky - I was going to add something like "extremely hot and luminous" before "Wolf-Rayet star", but realised it might be misleading as blue supergiants are hot and luminous. Similarly describing it as "blue" will sound weird and/or repetitive given I've just mentioned blue supergiants. I thought a blue-link was enough but am open to suggestions. I suppose I could put a subordinate clause in afterwards - "Wolf-Rayet star, a class of extremely hot and luminous stars"...but anything I can think of sounds unwieldy.....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetric shells

  • "Recent studies suggest that ..." - one can't really tell how recent they are without a citation, perhaps that "recent" can be replaced
"Recent studies suggest that" removed - subsequent "may" allows us to ditch "suggest" Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... exists another cool region ..." - was the region with 1500 ± 500 K the first cool one? perhaps "cooler" is better, since 1500 K is not cool
Yeah I'll pay that. "cooler" more succinct than "relatively cool", which was my other thought.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Betelgeuse has a dense highly complex atmosphere." - the article previously used the "red-hot vacuum" quotation and now the atmosphere around that is described as dense - the source doesn't qualify against what "dense" is measured (space?) but this seems like a discrepancy and may make readers wonder
From the context I'd say it was compared against the sun's atmosphere, however I agree it is hard to qualify as I suspect it is no denser than further in. I've dropped the adjective as the complexity is the key message in the source and we've spelled that out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supersonic bow shock

  • "since the beginning of the millennium" - the sources in this paragraph are from 2008 and 1997, so the wording seems off
I deleted it Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... by the star itself, but a powerful stellar wind ..." - that sentence is unclear (is it "by its stellar wind"?)
yes indeed - changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching supernova

  • the word "concede" seems wrong to me (leads to the question against what opposition the number is conceded)
concede --> posit (much nicer fitting verb - I always like using it) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... relatively soon compared to its age." - I find the comparison odd, the statement "already old" has made that point in the same sentence.
I think pointing out that a supernova is due in a relatively short time in astronomical terms is a plus for the article (think lay readers), but question is how to phrase it - would either "relatively soon in astronomical terms" or "relatively soon with respect to its lifespan" be better? Any ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..., because runaway stars are believed to be caused by supernovae, ..." - that is not the only cause but suggests it is believed to be
  • "..., then reach the Solar System centuries later." - the separate treatment of the travelling duration of neutrinos seems to suggest that they arrive hundreds of years later than light, but they arrive at the same time (unless the source argues they move slower - does it?)
No, the neutrinos are the first things to make it to us, beating light because they are not slowed along the way (unlike light). I have rejigged the section to make it more chronological. I hope it is clearer now (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star system

  • the Cavendish Astrophysics Group is in italics, which is not the style used in the rest of the article and does not appear to me to have a good reason
Confused for a second. Did you mean the quote from them? If so I just unitalicised it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Thanks.
  • I strongly dislike the second to last sentence, it is crystall balling/its claims are unsourced and the description "enigmatic" for the star's past is gratuitous
I removed last two sentences as Gaia source does not mention Betelgeuse specifically and I think the section is engaging enough by leaving it with a mysterious ending.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think we can reiterate the meaning of CfA - that abbreviation was introduced long before this paragrah and not used in between - and possibly link the Gaia mission again
I unabbreviated it. Yeah, 2nd links ok as waaay up the page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnological attributes

Spelling and pronunciation

  • perhaps insert "in English" after Betelgeux, I thought for a while both names in the first sentence were German according to Bode (and that I merely didn't know the first) until I figured it out
Okay, although the -x spelling is mentioned in the OED, I can't be certain it is only English that it appears in, so have switched the "in German" bit to before the Beteigeuze, so that it unambiguously only means the second name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

  • well written, good read

Other names

  • looks like the Japanese name referred to the Heike clan, not the war - the background is interesting but I think that needs clarification before the war story is told
rejigged it now for more logical flow + cute star detail added :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had an artificial shoulder of ivory made for him" - in that instance I believe "himself" would be a better choice to make clear who the recipient is, no?
In the legend, Pelops was young when it his shoulder was eaten, so it was his family who ordered the shoulder made, but I kept the subordinate bit passive to keep it concise. "himself" makes it sound like he did the ordering to have it made.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read that again and I think it works.
  • "... linked via Orion's association with stormy weather ..." - I don't understand this part but the sentence from the source discussing this I find hard to understand, too, perhaps this can be made clearer?
Bleh, I realise Allen writes so obliquely I read it wrong. I have rejigged to more accurately align with book (d'oh!) and spell out that it was Allen's link (lots of Allen's stuff is suspect, but he is one of the only people who has collated material like this so is very widely quoted! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

  • where is the movie's connection to Carl Jung and synchronicity sourced from?
It's a great line. I didn't add that and tried to find a source for it (sadly unsuccessfully) - removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • one could improve the layout by sorting successive citations by number ([74][70] to [70][74] for example)
multiple refs now in ascending numerical order. I only found one offender... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, thought I had seen a couple...

I'm sorry for not checking out all the comments by others above first but the crossed-out text and colors are hard to read. My comments are merely suggestions, I have no problem if anyone disagrees. Hekerui (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No that makes sense. You are looking at the article how it is now, so any issues are still outstanding. If something has been discussed previously we will let you know. I generally start with the easiest fixes first while I am musing on the others... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would weigh in on the current round of edits. A great many of them are significant improvements, and thank you to both Hekerui and Casliber, but I think some of the prose edits are making this article duller. Here are examples where I think the prose has deteriorated:
  • " this stellar giant" -> "the giant star"
This is an intriguing one - do we think there'd be lay readers who wouldn't twig that "stellar" meant star? I figure that was why this was tweaked (?) Hekerui would you be ok with "stellar giant"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • deletion of "a central theme which would be the focus of scientific inquiry for almost a century" - an accurate line which built narrative interest for the reader
  • "he noticed significant changes in magnitude with Betelgeuse outshining Rigel" -> "he noticed changes in the magnitude of Betelgeuse and that it outshone Rigel" - both accurate, one is just duller prose
Agree the first sounds better and is no less wordy or grammatically ponderous Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletion of " Both developments would prove to have a significant impact on our understanding of the structure of red supergiants like Betelgeuse." If the sentence was inaccurate or does not accurately prefigure text that follows, then removal is warranted. However in a long text, prefiguring issues in order to spike reader interest is one of the things that makes prose "engaging, even brilliant".
I'll replay this again, but my feeling was that the statement was so general I wasn't fussed about losing it. I think there are more succinct things which are worth keeping. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For decades astronomers have understood that the outer shells of red giants are central to this process, yet the actual mechanics of stellar mass loss remain a mystery." -> "and red giants are major contributors, yet the mechanics of stellar mass loss are unclear". I don't see the problem that this edit was designed to solve. "Remain a mystery" for example is perfectly fine. Why not invoke that sense of mystery rather than use a dull word like "unclear"?
The main objection was the vague first part of the clause. Hekerui objected to "mystery" elsewhere....but I think that was probably after seeing the word several times...I will keep the exacter first bit and more interesting second and hopefully strike a balance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there has been ongoing work to measure the actual distance of Betelgeuse, with proposed distances as high as" -> "there has been ongoing work to measure the distance of Betelgeuse and proposed distances were as high as" - in this case, I don't see why the word "were" has been inserted.
I inserted the "were" because the 2008 source mentioned this as a value used in 1985.
Ah, in that case there is a different problem. If this is an entirely historical discussion, then we need to do something about the "there has been", earlier in the sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. We are a fair degree closer to a proper distance but it is not set in stone as yet, so I think "has been" is still valid, and some of the more variant claims are clearly in the past now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the grammar of the sentence doesn't work, whatever the facts are that we want to communicate. We can't have a sentence begin "There has been" and later in the same sentence refer to "distances were". The two constructions have to agree: There were / distances were, or There has been / distances are. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, in which case I have changed it back to ",with..." - as the alternative would be to have subordinate clause " proposed distances have been as high as 400 pc or about 1,300 ly." which is needlessly wordy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence works now.
  • "extremely low density" -> "low density". How was the density not extremely low?
I thought the word misleading, "extremely low density" suggested vacuum to me and considering how empty a vacuum in space is I thought it was a huge exaggeration and unlike "red-hot vacuum" not a good illustration. I admit I assumed the source doesn't use the wording. If it does, I have no objection to putting it back in.
The source does use "extremely" and "very", and I think "extremely" helps visualise it for the reader (i.e. engaging prose). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then in 2000" -> "In 2000" This reduces the signposting of chronological order for the reader, reducing readability.
I thought the years given were enough of a chronology so I felt this was a fill word.
Fair enough. I think the wiki markup was doing my eyes in. Now that I've read the 'clean' version, it looks OK without "then". hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, meaning that the diameter is changing with time" -> "Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, its diameter changes with time", the latter text would be OK, except it is now incorrectly punctuated (the comma needs to be a colon if running with this formulation)
I slotted in a "so", yielding "Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, so its diameter changes with time". An "as" would work too, or even a "therefore" if we're trying to avoid present participles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest a slightly less 'scorched earth' approach to the tone of the article, particularly in terms of drawing the reader on through the story with "engaging, even brilliant" prose? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right. A lot of "with" constructions in the text made it more complicated it read and it felt sensationalistic at times to me so maybe I went overboard in pointing out changes. As I stated above, these are all mere suggestions and I merely hoped to help improve this article so we can at least take that maintenance template off and consider the text going forward. Good style is not just cutting down though, that's right. Hekerui (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am very happy with about 80% of Hekerui's suggestions, though there are a few I question. I use the "with + -ing" subordinate clause alot, but I am intrigued as alot of people find it problematic. I think it works well in the Rigel comparison and have switched it back. Some other ones come to mind. Will just read a couple of sources above. It is a question of where to strike the right balance really. fascinating exercise really.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need to sleep now. I do hope we are converging on a mutually acceptable point in prose (I do think we're getting there :)) - back in the morning. Sadalsuud should be along a little later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean towards supporting this nomination. An image check turned up no issues as far as I can see. I saw only one copyright problem in the text and that was dealt with, but I have only done a spotcheck. The issues that I brought up and were not addressed I hope can be dealt with one way or the other. It is not ideal for the review that I lack familiarity with the profusion of literature cited, but it appears to me that the article presents the article subject in an appropriate structure and standard of writing and sufficiently acknowledges and discusses the uncertainty of technical data. Hekerui (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased (and mightily relieved) that we can find common ground and prose that both you and Hamiltonstone feel is up to scratch. Sadalsuud is still looking at the last section above and I will give the astronomy wikiproject a hoy to get some attention from someone familiar with astronomy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm late into this discussion but didn't want to see this nom die through lack of support. I do have some knowledge of the area but at this point have only done a cursory read through of the article. However, one figure that immediately caught my eye was that luminosity figure. Estimates here vary wildy, many sources quote figures as low as the 10,000-30,000 mark, and the 130,000 figure quoted here is right at the top of the range of values given. As such you have to tread very carefully preserving that figure - you need top quality sourcing for sure. Ideally you also need to show why other sources that may be given are wrong. However, the source given is not top quality, indeed it doesn't actually make the assertion given here, instead using a figure from elsewhere as a starting point.

This isn't a minor point, since this is a fairly basic parameter and a lot of the discussion that follows depends either explicitly or implicitly depends on maintaining the integrity of that figure. All that is required at the moment is someone to find a source that quotes e.g. a figure of 20,000 more forcefully and we would have to defer to that. With that change major sections of the article are invalidated. Therefore this is a kind of referencing "pinch point" that is key to the integrity of the article as a whole, and at present it is not sufficiently robust. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and the distance issues have given us decades' worth of discussion on the matter. Some webpages are updated in an odd manner, hence we have Solstation's page which has a bolded update, yet looks like the range of 40,000 to 100,000 L☉ has not been updated since the new further distance. I'll check this in web archive. The Mohamed 2012 paper uses the values from Smith 2009 - all values since 2008 incorporate new Hipparcos interpretation of B being further away than previously thought. Will just double check some others. I would have thought if there was more variance among experts currently there'd be more discussion about differing figures, which I don't recall seeing. But will check.......this also predates the update. This has 140k as a calculation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a difficult issue from the beginning since there is no primary research that definitively resolves the issue and the debate around 1) distance, 2) angular diameter, and 3) photospheric temperature is ongoing. The best discussion, I think, can be found in the Luminosity article under Computational challenges. These calculations were taken out of the article, but have been referenced in a few places. The discussion here is from the latest primary sources and therefore reflects the most up to date discussion on the subject, establishing a range between 84,000 L☉ and 154,000 L☉. In conclusion, I think that 120,000 L☉ as a mean figure is a fair representation of primary sources. Secondary and tertiary sources are almost always out of date, hence the confusion that's out there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I have decided that this candidate is ready for promotion. Any remaining issues can be resolved post-promotion, on the article's Talk Page. I would like to thank the nominators and all the reviewers for their contributions to this intelligent and thorough discussion. Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 16 October 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Betelgeuse/archive1&oldid=1210484984"