I'm reading through it. One thing that jumped out at me is the note - "stars within a few degrees of the horizon are to all intents and purposes unobservable" - 11 degrees is quite a substantial portion which are implied not visible, should a quantifier regarding latitudes further north be added? --GilderienChat|
List of good deeds22:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I have had a tough time looking for sources discussing this aspect much on many stars/constellations - I guess most of us are city-dwellers with buildings and trees and crap significantly obfuscating the horizon, let alone extinction (and telescopium is pretty faint). If I can see anything else sourceable I will addCas Liber (
talk·contribs)
00:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)reply
And a bit more of a review...
Images - the two that are currently there are nice and also appropriately licensed - it might be nice to have one or two in the stars and deep sky objects sections, which are currently looking a bit bare.
"allowing the margin of error in their distances just overlaps," is confusing, if I am understanding it right would something like "however, the uncertainty in their distances overlap, so blah blah" work?
"common proper motion with (and is hence gravitationally bound to)" - from my own knowledge, and having examined the source, I'm not sure the "hence" should be there - objects can share common proper motion without being part of the same system). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gilderien (
talk •
contribs)
03:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)reply
"result of a merger between a helium- and carbon-oxygen white dwarf" - this plural, or not, is I think potentially confusing. Would it be correct to have an "a" before the word carbon? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gilderien (
talk •
contribs)
03:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm reading through it. One thing that jumped out at me is the note - "stars within a few degrees of the horizon are to all intents and purposes unobservable" - 11 degrees is quite a substantial portion which are implied not visible, should a quantifier regarding latitudes further north be added? --GilderienChat|
List of good deeds22:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I have had a tough time looking for sources discussing this aspect much on many stars/constellations - I guess most of us are city-dwellers with buildings and trees and crap significantly obfuscating the horizon, let alone extinction (and telescopium is pretty faint). If I can see anything else sourceable I will addCas Liber (
talk·contribs)
00:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)reply
And a bit more of a review...
Images - the two that are currently there are nice and also appropriately licensed - it might be nice to have one or two in the stars and deep sky objects sections, which are currently looking a bit bare.
"allowing the margin of error in their distances just overlaps," is confusing, if I am understanding it right would something like "however, the uncertainty in their distances overlap, so blah blah" work?
"common proper motion with (and is hence gravitationally bound to)" - from my own knowledge, and having examined the source, I'm not sure the "hence" should be there - objects can share common proper motion without being part of the same system). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gilderien (
talk •
contribs)
03:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)reply
"result of a merger between a helium- and carbon-oxygen white dwarf" - this plural, or not, is I think potentially confusing. Would it be correct to have an "a" before the word carbon? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gilderien (
talk •
contribs)
03:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)reply