Talk:Leo Minor

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leo Minor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

lay reviews are important to get accessibility right. Will work on the footnotes..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

all refs fixed now. A bit sloppy and rushed of me.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Within definition
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

• 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)

• There are only three stars brighter than magnitude 4.5, - In the sky, in the constellation,... ?

added "in the constellation" Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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 better Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• and designated its brightest star Beta. - Isn't 46 Leonis Minoris the brightest? There's no "Beta" there.

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• these two stars as of this magnitude. - Which two?

clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• The two each other every 38.62 years. - Missing a verb (orbit, I think)

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

• I did one while copyediting (regarding the numbers) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fresh look and yeah, rejigged now. Changed "would be" to "very likely flattened"... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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 ...?

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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.

reworded - is that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

• I'll say :-) Don't think there are stars which tell other stars to eat cats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This constellation is a bit like the Delaware of constellations. I am testing the waters on smaller ones before tackling a biggie like Scorpio or Orion... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, election humour. Well, it's pretty good... just some outstanding issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

2

• Fix the citation needed tag.

rejigged and ditched sentence as can't find a ref for it even though obvious. got another factoid in... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why not have the citations in two or more columns? Makes the page look neater.

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• ISBNs should be 13-digit.

all isbns 13 digit Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly suggest archiving the BBC ref and other online references.

3

• History is awful short. Anything else available?

difficult as not really much to say....but will see what else I can find. found a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• More about the Leonis Minorids... I see no point in keeping a section with a single sentence.

increased it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Has the constellation ever had different interpretations? Spiritual / astrological connotations?

found a little bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hope to do a spotcheck later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck

• FN 13 - Title is Praecipua. Otherwise peachy.

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• FN42 - All checks out, no close paraphrasing.
• SIMBAD references. I tried two but my eyes started crossing within several seconds.

Yeah, not surprised. You gotta know what you're looking at to understand that...and it's a bit of an acquired art.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• On hold for a week to fix the issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

References

See this and this to read....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The shape of Leo Minor

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)

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)

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)

It would be a good fact to add....except that it is wrong, as 46 LMi is brighter to us that Beta LMi...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

CorinneSD Yeah yeah, it happens quite often - no biggie...listen I saw by your user page you like plants and presumably have a desire to have articles as accessible as possible...if so I'd be grateful if you could look at Epacris impressa which is at FAC at present...and not many folks are looking...see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epacris impressa/archive1 cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Leo Minor

Shouldn't "Leo Minor" be translated as "Lesser Lion" then "Smaller Lion"? Nick O'Sea (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308175047/http://astronomynow.com/news/n1006/25voorwerp/ to http://astronomynow.com/news/n1006/25voorwerp/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401220854/http://www.knoxvilleobservers.org/dsonline/spring/leominor.html to http://www.knoxvilleobservers.org/dsonline/spring/leominor.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Leo Major and Leo Minor.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Leo Major and Leo Minor.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 1, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-02-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A lithograph by Sidney Hall depicting the constellations Leo and Leo Minor, two of the 88 modern constellations. Although Leo was recognised as early as Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD, Leo Minor was only designated by Johannes Hevelius in 1687. As suggested by its name, Leo Minor is considerably smaller than Leo; the latter covers 947 square degrees, while the former only covers 232 square degrees.Lithograph: Sidney Hall, from Urania's Mirror

Proposed addition of NOIRLab annotated Leo Minor image

Hello. I have a conflict of interest because I am making this request as part of work connected with NOIRLab. I would like to propose adding an annotated NOIRLab image of Leo Minor to the article while keeping the existing naked-eye image in place. The proposed image is available on Wikimedia Commons as: File:Leo Minor (Annotated) (leo-minor-ann).tiff I suggest adding the annotated image in the Stars section, immediately above the current naked-eye image. This would preserve the existing image and add a complementary visual that identifies the IAU boundaries, constellation stick figure, and brightest stars. Suggested caption: The constellation Leo Minor showing the IAU boundaries, the constellation stick figure, and labels for its brightest stars. Astrophotograph by Eckhard Slawik, from NOIRLab's 88 Constellations project. Proposed wikitext:

The constellation Leo Minor showing the IAU boundaries, the constellation stick figure, and labels for its brightest stars. Astrophotograph by Eckhard Slawik, from NOIRLab's 88 Constellations project.

Leo Minor as seen by the naked eye

Based on the current article layout, the page appears to have enough text and visual space to accommodate an additional image in the Stars section. The existing naked-eye image is useful and should remain in place, while the annotated NOIRLab image would provide readers with a clearer guide to the constellation boundaries, stick figure, and labeled stars. The Commons file is released under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons, and the image credit would remain visible in the caption. The caption wording can of course be adjusted. The external caption link can also be replaced with a ]]

This version does not include the photograph author or NOIRLab project wording in the visible caption. The reference is included only to document the image source clearly. If this still does not fit Wikipedia’s preferred style for image captions, I would be happy to adjust it further. Marcodatadev (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo

Thank you for your feedback.

If removing the author’s name from the caption would help address the concern and make the captions non-promotional, we can certainly do that.

Please let us know if that would be an acceptable fix, and we can proceed with removing the author’s name from the captions.

sorry I didn't get a reply of my last message Marcodatadev (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

References