Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Open cluster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Open cluster

This is another astronomy article that I felt deserved a better article than it had a week or so ago, and I think now it covers all the major aspects of these interesting objects, so I'm putting it forward for your consideration for featured status. Worldtraveller 02:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object, doesn't appear to be comprehensive. Everyking 08:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • How so? What's missing? Worldtraveller 08:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What, I have to be an astronomer to object? It looks short compared to the ordinary FA. Is this indeed everything you could reasonably write on the subject? Everyking 09:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Course not - we're writing for the general reader, so any objection from a general reader is fine, of course. But if you want it to be more comprehensive, I really need to know what else to add - what else you, as a general reader, would like to see. Worldtraveller 09:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't know what you can add. That's why I asked you, is this everything you know of to write? That "general reader" stuff has just got me even more worried. Everyking 10:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't have nominated it if I thought it wasn't comprehensive! But reading it again I realised I'd not really mentioned much about determining distances to open clusters, so I've added a section on that. What worries you about the phrase 'general reader'? Worldtraveller 12:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
            • You have all the right to object Everyking. But objections need to be actionable. If you don't tell him how to expand, your objection can't be acted upon. Mgm|^(talk) 20:24, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that this article is satisfactory! So what if it's "shorter than the average FA"? I think it's comprehensive and concise. As an amateur astronomer myself, I think this article is great for those who aren't as in to it as us. Linuxbeak 10:36, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks very good. Two things you could add: (1) Why are they called "open" clusters? What other kinds of clusters are there? (2) Something about the history of discovery and understanding of open clusters? In particular, who first identified them as a distinct class of objects and when? Gdr 13:03, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for those comments - I've added a section about the history of their observations, including why they're called open, which I am sure now also addresses any concerns about comprehensiveness. Worldtraveller
    • The additions are very clear, thank you. Gdr 15:34, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Support. Though it really needs inline citations for all of the most important and/or contentious facts. great thanks - Taxman 13:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I woudn't mind to see it expanded, but it does seem nicely written, ilinked, references and - as far as a amateur (me) can tell - comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• object sort of in support of Everyking. I can believe that the article is comprehensive, but I can't verify it easily. The references seem excellent, but would take a long time to check, could we please a) have a description of what that reference is useful for b) for each important section and for important, controversial or surprising points information about which reference to look them up in and where in that reference to look (ideally page, at least chapter) c) if possible some references which are internet linked. In my opinion the best way would be to add Footnotes and descriptions to the references, however any method which has similar effects would be fine. Mozzerati 19:34, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
  • I've added cite points for the references. The titles of the references are all fairly clear about what the reference covers, and they're all journal papers, so usually no more than about 20 pages long, and interested readers can get the most important facts from the abstract. Page numbers are given for all of them. Does that cover your objection? Worldtraveller 01:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Almost thanks - would it be possible to give a general text which you think gives a good overview of the topic? E.g. an undergraduate text book or maybe even lower level. Of the internet references only SEDS seems to be general and even that seems very non-comprehensive, at least compared to your article :-) . What are the maximum distances for which the open cluster method of distance measurment is valid, both directly and indirectly? Is it possible to exceed thousands of light years? Tens of thousands? Mozzerati 08:17, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
      • Thanks for these very helpful comments. I've added a couple of undergrad (but very readable and non-technical) texts in a further reading section, and a couple more general links. Also added a bit more about distances. What do you think? Worldtraveller 16:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support It answers the questions I have about the subject and it seems complete and it's got nice images and references. I don't think footnotes are particularly necessary. But I'll leave that up to the nominator. Mgm|^(talk) 21:00, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• support now, looks good and verifiable. Some comments still on the talk page, but the verifiability is now much better than many other successful FAs. Mozzerati 16:34, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive enough, looks good. JYolkowski // talk 23:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• support very good. -Pedro 00:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support; particularly, this article looks beautiful. --DanielNuyu 06:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)