Talk:IK Pegasi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star IK Pegasi is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Review

I fixed some problems in the article. However some issues remain: 1) the formulae in the notes section are IMO unnecessary; 2) detailed discussion of paralax (including image) should be left for an appropriate article (paralax); 3) the value of metallicity lacks a source and ref [2] provide different information; 4)if B component has a O-Ne core (as written in the section 'Component B'), it can not be a Ia type SN progenerator; 5) instead of A-type it is better to write A-class (since it refers to a spectral class) 6) it is necessary to find better sources for stellar evolution. Ruslik 10:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) The formulae were in lieu of a suitable reference, which was unavailable in those instances. (Otherwise they'd get tagged with {{Fact}} templates and need to be clarified.) So I believe them necessary, and other article pages use formulae for the same reason.; (2) Sentence is needed per Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Image removed; (3) footnote [2], p. 1050, table 2 gives an adopted value of [M/H]=+0.07±0.20; (4) Done; (5) Done; (6) Done (or else further clarification of requirement is needed). Thanks for the review. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In (1) I wrote IMO so I won't insist, but I fixed some technical problems with formulas and now they look better (3) It is better to use ref [5] for metallicity and [2] for pulsations (in the lead section) (6) Thermal pusles in AGB stars arise because nuclear burning alternates between hydrogen and helium i.e. helium flashes extinguish hydrogen burning shell and when helium ends hygrogen starts to burn again. Such alternations result in an extreme instability. The current sentence is imprecise in this respect. Ruslik 07:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification. For (3) the paper in ref. [5] just adopts the [M/H] values from ref. [2]. Would it be better to just cite both? For (6) I rewrote the paragraph with another reference and left the details of the pulsations unspecified. — RJH (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I think it is possible to cite both sources. I made few minor fixes myself (use of tenses) and passed the article. Ruslik 11:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

The article states : In fact progenitor for this star is estimated to have contained as much as 5 solar masses.. However, when reading the reference (P282), it sounds that the progenitor mass was at least 5 solar masses (between 5 and 8 solar masses). There may be a mistake in the article. Poppypetty 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed. Spacepotato 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)