![]() | A fact from S Coronae Borealis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 August 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
@ Lithopsian: we need some sort of distance in the prose, I had added this, but if you think something else please add alternative. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I really wonder about the paper by Takeuti et al. used as the main citation for distance, luminosity, etc. It is nonsensical to give a bolometric luminosity accurate to 4 significant figures and mass and radius accurate to 3, given a 5% error bar on the parallax and therefore distance. Whose mistake is this, the transcriber's or the original paper's? -- Bill-on-the-Hill ( talk) 17:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from S Coronae Borealis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 August 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
@ Lithopsian: we need some sort of distance in the prose, I had added this, but if you think something else please add alternative. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I really wonder about the paper by Takeuti et al. used as the main citation for distance, luminosity, etc. It is nonsensical to give a bolometric luminosity accurate to 4 significant figures and mass and radius accurate to 3, given a 5% error bar on the parallax and therefore distance. Whose mistake is this, the transcriber's or the original paper's? -- Bill-on-the-Hill ( talk) 17:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)