Talk:Astronomers discover largest star on record
Add topicReview of revision 1063373 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 1063373 of this article has been reviewed by InfantGorilla (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Good writing, great headline, and great lead paragraph. Lets try to explain where it is in the sky. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1063373 of this article has been reviewed by InfantGorilla (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Good writing, great headline, and great lead paragraph. Lets try to explain where it is in the sky. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Do you find it frustrating that the mainstream press doesn't go to talk to other astronomers (especially those competing in the same field) to get a reaction? After all, even eminent teams can misinterpret their data now and again, and go public with an error. --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I feel the same way; however, keep in mind that this is a fairly recent event, more information may become available later on. Tyrol5 (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
We have 24 hours to improve it further. I have to take my criticism of the mainstream press back: the AP filed this just a few minutes after you filed,
... with reaction from two independent astronomers.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll add this info. Thanks. Tyrol5 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Info's in, care to review it? Tyrol5 (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really the largest star
[edit]I don't know if the astronomers estimated the diameter of the star: their claim is actually, the most massive, but many readers will not find that word helpful. A piece by the AP says :"While other stars can be larger, notably the swollen crimson-colored ones known as red giants, they weigh far less." Is that kind of interpretation appropriate in our piece? --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would have no objection to moving the article, should that prove necessary, but I don't think the average layman would know, or even care about the difference between the two terms. Tyrol5 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, most people don't pay attention in high school physics, and have only the vaguest concepts of mass and weight. However, I don't think we should be patronising and say the star contains the most matter, or the most stuff. People who were paying attention in high school would get the point as soon as they get to the phrase "mass of our sun", so perhaps you have made the best of a difficult job. Those who don't care much for "mass" will just say "wow" (I hope!). --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to insist that the article is moved. Saying that it's the largest star suggests we are talking about volume, which we are not. The article should be called "Astronomers discover most massive star on record". --Sunoco (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Our consensus from the discussion above was that to the average layperson, the term differences wouldn't matter. We also agreed that anyone who did care about the difference would get the point fairly quickly. Tyrol5 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the words "heaviest" and "most massive" are even more confusing in the woeful state of scientific literacy today. I really dislike "largest" because even people who know little about astronomy will have heard of Betelgeuse, and seen the artists impressions that show it to be much bigger (in diameter or volume) than 300 times the size of the sun. However, I think we might be stuck with "largest" until we get a better proposal than "most massive". --InfantGorilla (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- New Scientist seems to have beaten most websites to press,[1] and I enjoyed its use of "biggest" and the "humungous", even though they it is entitled to use the words "mass" and "massive". --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that scientific terminology plays that large of a role in the title itself. Personally, I have nothing against the title as it is now. Tyrol5 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Binary system, and mass calculation probably wrong
[edit]This article is lacking in that it protrays the discovery as a single star, while in reality it's almost certainly a binary star system. While the stars involved are indeed massive, the idea that they're over 300 solar masses is a bit extreme, and probably wrong. --Sunoco (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The binary partner is probably small, according to Crowther. If you think the binary partner is interesting to readers, then don't be afraid to propose new wording.
- When you say "probably wrong", this is 'in press' for a peer-reviewed journal, and the New Scientist also contacted independent astronomers to ask about the calculations in this paper.
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Crowther or Cowther?
[edit]Please address the discrepancy of this different spelling which occurs several times in this article. I have never edited Wikinews personally so don't feel bold enough. Thanks. Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Done Feel free to do this sort of thing yourself — check the sources to be sure you've got the right of it, then make the edit. There's a safety net for you, anyway: your edits to a published article won't appear in the published version until they've been certified by an authorized reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
