Talk:Horologium (constellation)

message: To explain the "Planets" headline, see Talk:Constellation (Planets in the constellations). — Hurricane Devon (Talk) 19:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planets 

message: In Rome there is a big obelisk on a giant sundial type thing, which was erected by Caesar Augustus I believe, but is now mostly buildings. The Ara Pacis -- augustus' monument to peace -- was there as well. Are we to understand that the naming of this constellation is completely unrelated to the Horalogium of Augustus?
71.236.171.69 18:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology 

message: NO. Article meets Class C status at present. But I, as a non-astro editor, can say it needs to work up from Start to Class B, and then to GA. I just don't find that much to make it worthwhile.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Err,  just saw this (dunno how I missed this...) - what do you think it is missing? Everything's referenced as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll add to my comment about being a non-astro editor – I'm basically a non-astro reader as well. (Although I thought Fred Hoyle's Steady State was an elegant explanation of our existence.)  This article fails in one important regard – WP:TECHNICAL.  – S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went through this one a month ago with a view to assessing it. But hit similar problems to above. The review would have involved a lot of repetition of "what does this mean? I left it on my watchlist thinking that if no one else picked it up then I might return to it. If you are up for having a lot of the technical terms poked at for conversion to something a layperson could understand , and non-technical stuff put into context, then I would be happy to pick it up. There is a GA in there (possibly more), but, IMO, it needs a fair bit of work done to draw it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess that I didn't notice who the nominator was, or I may have reacted differently. If you understand that I think that the article needs a fair bit of detechnicalising - without wishing to be dogmatic about how much nor in what way - and would be content with me as an assessor, then I would be more than happy to formally open the assessment and pitch in with suggestions. What say you? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy for you to open a GA review and then we can go through - some material can likely be dejargonised but some may not (it's not too long an article...). BTW it shouldn't matter who the nominator is. My work should be scrutinised just like anyone else's (or vice versa or whatever) ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant is that I currently have a FAC rumbling on where the nominator seems unwilling or unable to use plain English and has accused me of being "condescending"; one of those at a time is sufficient. Realising that a nominator has a track record of taking critical comments on the chin and handling them objectively makes me more prepared to put the work in to communicate where I think dejargonisation may help. I will open the GAN and stand back for a couple of days to see what you do. When things go quiet and/or you give me a nudge I will work my way through the prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok sounds good. I have tried to add some minor words - some other might require a chunk of context that might be a bit too circumstantial to the article...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

text:  Re naming: I suggest an explanatory footnote. Next I see the terms "apparent magnitude" and "magnitude"; but astronomy also has :absolute magnitude. How does the average reader know that :apparent magnitude is the only :magnitude (astronomy) being referred to?   – S. Rich (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I have been busy IRL..but have been musing on this. With a footnote on magnitude, the second para of the lead of Magnitude (astronomy) looks a good place to start. How many sentences would you have (of that para) as a footnote and where would hte footnote be linked to? The lead after first mention of magnitude? Or somewhere else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Regarding Beta Horologii, source says "In terms of study and examination, Beta Hor does not do much better, the star being cited in just 20 studies over a 150 year period."....i.e. little studied. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  fair point - but the issue here is that the uncertainty of some measurements is much greater or less than others, so to present the information in its truest form is to list the numbers and the margins of error, which imparts a greater degree of fidelity to the original material Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually we have two issues. One is how precise are the data which the sources provide? Are they guestimating, using a ruler, or something else? And how do the different sources compare?  Second, what we providing the readers in terms of readability? E.g., does it help the reader to see some data with a slew of decimal places in one line and then only a few in another line. By rounding to a consistent limit we comply with WP:DETAIL.  – S. Rich (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review