This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
I'll do this later today. Please note that I am not an expert in astronomy, so I will tend to emphasise readibility from a layman's POV. An early comment, the Matheson, Levy, and Gizis FNs are all broken, while Kaler, Jim. "21 Leonis Minoris" is not used. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
2b.
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Richard A. Proctor gave the constellation the name Leaena "the Lioness". - Roughly when? Any reason this name didn't stick?
date added. He wanted to shorten the names of the constellations to make their names less cumbersome on maps. They weren't taken up by anyone else, I just need to find a source saying that (though it is obvious...)Casliber (
talk·contribs)
10:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
There are only three
stars brighter than magnitude 4.5, - In the sky, in the constellation,... ?
Leo Minor does not have an alpha star because
Francis Baily erred and designated its brightest star Beta. - When? What is an "alpha star" (link at least). Perhaps if Leo Minor was charted by Baily this could go in
Have added Baily's bit on cataloguing these constellations of Hevelius to the History section after Hevelius - mused on placing the sentence in the stars section instead - bit undecided about which is betterCasliber (
talk·contribs)
13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
and designated its brightest star Beta. - Isn't 46 Leonis Minoris the brightest? There's no "Beta" there.
21 Leonis Minoris is a rapidly rotating white star around 98 light years away and around 10 times as luminous as our sun. It is spinning on its axis in less than 12 hours and would be slightly flattened in shape. - Shouldn't start a sentence with a number. Also, why "would be"? Is it or isn't it? Or is it likely flattened?
(a) very hard to rejig when a name stars with a number (which it does)....willl see what I can do. (b) we can't see it as anything other than a point of light, yet physics tells us it will be flattened (though we haven't seen it). Need to think on this.Casliber (
talk·contribs)
00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The fact that the secondary star is brighter than expected indicates it is likely two stars very close together and inseparable with current technology. - The old red dwarf? Inseparable in viewing or ...?
In 2000, it hosted a 17.4 magnitude variable star since determined to be a
luminous blue variable and
supernova imposter. - The nebula held this star only for a year? That's pretty darn fast, for space.
Overall it's quite jolty. You should try and use a few more transitions (however, meanwhile) and summarise key points.
becomes tricky to use contrastives if the two points aren't being contrasted in sources, but I understand. These articles are quite tricky and I will see what I can do. Astronomy can be pretty dry...Casliber (
talk·contribs)
00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Alright, this looks fairly solid now. The grammar has improved (I did some more fixes earlier), but before going to FAC I strongly suggest working on flow. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
15:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I am puzzled by something. In the graphic in the info box, the constellation Leo Minor is outlined with a green line. It looks like a narrow, horizontally-positioned diamond with a single line projecting to the right. Then, in the lower left of the article, there is another image of the night sky with the caption "Leo Minor as seen with the naked eye". I clicked on that to enlarge it, and there is a line drawn in the sky which I assume was drawn so that readers will see the shape of Leo Minor. But that line does not match the outline in the graphic in the info box. Is there something else besides that line I should be looking at in that photo of the night sky?
CorinneSD (
talk)
14:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Well spotted
CorinneSD - I will contact the photographer. The three closer stars joined in the photo (i.e. minus the one down to the bottom left) correspond to the
46 Leonis Minoris,
β and
21 Leonis Minoris in
this diagram. The down star from the Credner photo is
41 Leonis Minoris. The others added in the IAU map in hte infobox are
30 Leonis Minoris and
10 Leonis Minoris. Whether three, four or five stars are linked with a line varies - it is moot as the constellation is so faint anyway. The IAU maps don't label stars with Flamsteed numbers for some reason. I guess we could add the numbers ourselves.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs)
19:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh, good. Thanks for all the information and the links. First I looked at the diagram you provided a link to. I skimmed the text below the diagram. Then I looked at all the links. I wondered why this information, which is right below the diagram (the one with the twinkling stars):
"Beta Leo Minoris is the brightest star in this constellation, the only constellation in the northern hemisphere with no alpha",
is not in the article
Beta Leonis Minoris. The only place I found an explanation for "the only constellation in the northern hemisphere with no alpha" is at
46 Leonis Minoris. Perhaps that explanation should also be in the article on Beta Leonis Minoris since it's about Beta Leonis Minoris. If you think it should at least be in the article on Beta, could you add it? I'm not very good at adding references.
CorinneSD (
talk)
23:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh. O.K. But you see that statement in under the diagram in the link you provided to me, don't you? I was only taking it from there.
CorinneSD (
talk)
22:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 2 external links on
Leo Minor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.