Talk:Pleione (star)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

WP:WIAGA
for criteria This is a promising article, but there are several major issues that need to be addressed before receiving GA status.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Some of the prose is a bit awkward, particularly the prevalence very short sentences. I've fixed some of them, but it needs some careful copyediting (probably best to wait until the other issues are dealt with first)
    B. MoS compliance:
    I split the info on the name out of the lead, since it is not a summary of what is below. Feel free to change or add to the nascent section. It certainly needs a reference though! The lead could do with an extra paragraph or so to properly summarise the rest of the article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Sources appear to be reliable. A few personal websites of astronomers are less so, but none are for contentious statements and the sites in question seem to be written by experts. The Hersiod reference could do with a link to an online version.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    I've added {{
    cn
    }} tags where I think further references are required. Several of the sources are out of date, see below.
    C. No original research:
    No issues I can see.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Major areas are covered, but in some cases important facets are missing. See comments below for areas where I think this needs improving.
    B. Focused:
    The Mythology section rambles somewhat, and doesn't say much about the 'Ethnological impact' 'of this star. Most of the information in this section seems to belong in the
    Pleiades (star cluster)
    article, rather than here.
    Is it really necessary to have such a long description of an illustration in a work of fiction? I'm not sure this adds much to the article.
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias I can see.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Seems fine.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
    fair use rationales
    :
    File:M45map.jpg is missing author information, and might not qualify as PD-NASA due to ESA and AURA authorship
    File:Achernar.jpg has no source information
    File:HD 113766 circumstellar disk.jpg is tagged as PD-NASA, but has the credit line 'NASA/JPL-Caltech/JHUAPL' ie. not just NASA
    Note all of these are images whose appropriateness is discussed below
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
    suitable captions
    :
    The image in the infobox is not particularly clear, and has HST fields-of-view overlaid, for no apparent reason. Since this is such a commonly-imaged cluster, I'm sure you can find a blank image and add a big arrow or circle around Pleione.
    Using an illustration of Archenar on a page about Pleione is confusing. At the very least you should make it very obvious that the image does NOT show Pleione; even better would be to find a better illustration. The same issue exists with the picture of HD 113766.
    File:Taurus constellation map.png should be changed to File:Taurus constellation map.svg
    Information is important to the article must be given in the prose, not just the captions (both would also be fine).
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold for a week from 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Modest Genius talk 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • All magnitudes need to state which band they refer to (UBVRI etc or 'visual').
  • Is there really a circumstellar disk? My (admittedly non-specialist) understanding of Be stars was that the circumstellar material was ejected in all directions, though most strongly along the stellar equator. That's not the same thing as a disk though. EDIT: I should probably read some of the references from the Be star section, which might explain things.
  • The original Hipparcos reductions did indeed give a lower distance to the Pleiades, but this is now out of date after the second set of reductions in 2007. Unfortunately, the new and improved reduction did not resolve the differences. See [1]; this apparently needs to be updated on ALL of the articles on the Pleiades and Hipparcos, since they all seem to cite the out-of-date 1997 catalogue. van Leeuwen discusses the issue at some length in [2].
  • There are MANY more recent determinations of the spectral type than Pickering 1908 - indeed the article already mentions the existence of classifications beyond just 'B8'.
  • Listing mass, radius, luminosity etc as 'times solar' is cumbersome and annoying. I suggest using the L☉ etc and linking the first use to the relevant article (I've already done one of these as an example).
  • In the Be star section, what is meant by 'photospheric spectrum'? The emission certainly does not arise from the photosphere. The article says that Be stars are typically fast rotators, but provides no information on the rotation speed of Pleione. Ah that info is in the image caption. It should be moved into the text.
  • The article mentions that the disk inclination has changed due to precession, but then states that there are actually two disks, one at each angle. They can't both be correct, which is it? Or is the correct interpretation currently unknown?

OK I've made a start, but there are various things I still need to look at (image usage, references etc). I'll come back to this tomorrow or the next day. Modest Genius talk 23:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placed on hold for one week from 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Modest Genius talk 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of GA Review

General observations

  • I'll attempt to improve the article as best I can given my own limitations. Just so you know, I'm new to Wikipedia and this is the first GA review I've ever been involved in. Also, I have no formal background in physics or astronomy, just an interest in the subject. Some of the issues you raise may require the help of an expert.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a professional astronomer, though my expertise is in the interstellar medium not hot stars. I'm also probably quite a tough GA reviewer :p. I'm happy to help with any technical questions you have, although I should emphasise that I'm not an expert on stars! Modest Genius talk 22:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! I would very much appreciate the help.--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All issues that were raised in your initial and subsequent review have been addressed. I await further comments.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

A. Prose quality

  • I will endeavor to improve pursuant to your suggestions.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance

Sounds sensible to me. Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. Lead Section

  • I'll expand the lead section once all other issues have been addressed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead section has been expanded to two paragraphs according to MoS rules based on the article size. It touches on the article's main points.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and Verifiability

A. References to sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary

Coverage

A. Major aspects

B. Focused

  • I've changed the earlier heading "Ethnological impact" to "Ethnological influences". The latter phrase is broader, I think. From the above discussion, standardized nomenclature became a focus as most star articles deal largely with the same subject matter. The phraseology Etymology and cultural significance, as you can see from the above argument, didn't strike me as effective nomenclature. To me "Ethnological Influences" means all cultural influences, including our own—hence etymology, modern legacy etc. Given the similar etymology of Pleione and Pleiades, it's difficult to avoid discussing one without the other. I will attempt to make this section more concise.
  • The Fiction section was from an earlier contributor. Being new to Wikipedia, I kept it in its entirety. I'm open to any suggestion here from "Delete entirely" to "Reduce to one sentence or two" or "leave unchanged".--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One or two sentences seems the best option. Even better would be to identify any other mentions in fiction to broaden the section out, though that's easier said than done! Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some research and see if I can find anything else that could compliment this section. Another solution might be to expand the sub-section by calling it "Modern legacy" instead of "Fiction". I'll see what I can find and modify the section accordingly.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the section "Fiction" has been renamed to "Modern legacy" and condensed into a couple of sentences. I think it works. In the next few days, I'll see if there is any more "modern legacy" stuff that would be appropriate here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

OK here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

OK here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Images will be modified as follows:

Starbox


Visibility Section


Properties Section

  • File:Achernar.jpg I'll try to locate a better image, though I don't think there is one. My perception is the illustration was created to show its "shape" or otherwise highlight the concept of "oblateness" (See Be star). Achernar is just one example of this phenomenon. As a result, I thought the image would be useful for Pleione, particularly since Pleione rotates faster than Achernar—hence the caption distinguishing between the two stars. If this image doesn't work, or if you think it's overused, we'll have to find something else.Sadalsuud (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I finally found a pic that I think works and imported it into Commons. Its a pic of a classical Be star, Phi Persei. It was the best example I could find of an artist's impression of a gaseous disk. As a result, I changed the caption and imported the old information into the main body, reworking it a bit. I hope this works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Alpha Arae.jpg picture imported with references.


Ethnological influences Section


Captions

  • Captions will be modified and important information imported into the article.
  • Achernar caption imported and reworked.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Magnitudes

  • Magnitudes will be modified pursuant to your suggestions.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstellar disk

  • Various writers have been referring to the gaseous disk surrounding Be stars as a "decretion disk" and I've seen artist renderings of it on other webpages like this one. Seems like a disk to me although I'd be happy to defer to an expert on the subject.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm happy to believe that. Obviously it's me that was wrong! Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MParallax (Hipparcos)

  • I read the two links you provided. Unfortunately, the abstract does not provide the actual parallax value for Pleione and the article is not yet available for free in either pdf of html format. I did find a 2004 Hubble article however that argues for a 440ly estimate. So I've updated the article accordingly. If 440ly is in fact what Hipparcos 2007 reports as well, then many of the Kaler refs will have to be updated as well (i.e. luminosity) as they are based on 385ly. I suppose I can provide calculations in the notes section. Once I complete the research, I will include.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is where I forget not everyone knows the easy ways to find this sort of info! The 1997 data [3] are
mas, whilst the 2007 data [4] are π=8.54±0.31mas. In distance terms, that makes the 2007 determination 117±4pc. The 2009 van Leeuwen paper can be accessed for free at [5]; it's a pretty dense read even for an expert, but the relevant stuff is in section 6.3. The overall measurement for the whole cluster (using all the stars measured) is 120.2±1.9pc and I'm inclined to believe the Hipparcos result. Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
New Hipparcos estimate included. Thanks for all the help on this section. You'll notice that the new astrometric solution is included in the starbox, and the final Visibility paragraph updated accordingly. I've tried to respect Wikipedia's
Pleiades article has sided with the 440ly estimate, while failing to include the 2009 paper that you have referenced. Consequently, I've tried to avoid any conflict with this "senior" article while simultaneously providing a balanced viewpoint. It might be worthwhile, once all the edits are completed here, to attempt a rewrite of the Pleiades distance section, as readers will likely crosslink to it. Your thoughts on this would be helpful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Spectral classification

  • Will research and update.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I researched its current spectral classification. The most updated (B8IVpe), it seems, comes from Hoffleit 1991; so I included that ref, as well as a current ref that supports it. SIMBAD doesn't tell you where they get (B8IVev). I looked for it in different places but could not find it. Pickering 1908 shows B8p. There are quite a few other ones used (B7p), but I decided to simply stick with these two. I suspect some readers will wonder why SIMBAD shows a different classification.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SIMBAD takes the SpT from a combination of references. For this star, the individual measurements used and their bibcodes are:
 |ds/mss|           Spectral type            |     reference     |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
m|P /   |B7p                                 |1959ApJ...130..159O|
 |P /   |B8pvar                              |1956ApJ...123...54M|
 |P /   |B8pvar                              |1956ApJ...123..440S|
 |P /   |B8pvar                              |1953ApJ...118..370J|
 |P /   |B8pvar                              |1961MNRAS.123..521B|
 |  /   |B8nn                                |1972AJ.....77..750C|
The 5th (latest) edition of the Bright Star Catalogue gives B8Vpe, which is what I suggest you use (reference at [6], online query form at [7]). Modest Genius talk 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B8Vpe is what appears in the starbox. However, given that SIMBAD is a highly referenced source, both for this article and in general, I thought it would be useful to clarify any confusion in the Visibility section relating to SIMBAD's use of B8IVev. Does that work?--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar multiples

  • I have substituted X☉ where required and will continue to modify as needed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete for now. I did search for the word "solar" and there were 0 replies.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photospheric spectrum?

  • Will research and update.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the section to avoid use of the term "photospheric spectrum" also explaining where the emissions come from. I think this paragraph is now easier to understand.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation speed

  • Will edit caption and include information in article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption that was under the Achernar pic is now in the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disk inclination

  • Will research and update.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The confusion around disk inclination as well as the whole subject of "double disks" at different angles has been clarified.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section status

Lead

  • Needs work. Will complete once all the other sections are completed.
  • Added one sentence from earlier Etymology (Name) section and edited.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded lead per instructions.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visibility

  • Still needs some additional clarification on its spectral classification, after which it should be close to complete.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is complete for now, pursuant to your review and comments.--Sadalsuud (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Properties

  • Needs work.
  • Properties has been reworked multiple times. I think it's complete for now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I chose to redlink breakup velocity as the topic is not adequately addressed in the stellar rotation article and I suspect there is enough information on the topic to merit its own article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star system

  • I just noticed that there was a new study published in 2010 on Pleione's orbiting companions. Will research further and update this section.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not had time to study the new article. I suggest that any information related thereto be included as part of its FA requirement.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnological influences

  • OK. The whole section has been reworked and condensed pursuant to earlier conversation. If I can find relevant "Modern legacy" info, I will include. Otherwise I think this section is complete, subject to your review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few sentences that related to "Modern Legacy" to complete the section. The challenge here of course is that the legacy actually comes from the Greek myth, not necessarily the star itself. So I've given myself a wide berth in the interpretation of the word "legacy". The track from Fat Jon, however, is a direct reference to the star.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of images, I'm hoping to get a response from the Bonestell organization and be able to include the picture "Purple Pleione". If this does not happen, we could use the Hundred Eight Stars album cover. It qualifies, although the Purple Pleione pic is more relevant to an article on stars. I think it's best to wait and see. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section complete. Imported new pic.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

  • Complete, I think, depending on your approval.

Notes

  • Might need more work depending on future inclusions. I will let the Kaler refs stand "as is" given his estimated distance of 385ly. I have included a disclaimer in the Kaler ref putting the reader on notice that the "distance debate" could in fact impact other calculations.
  • Added a third note and reformatted the whole section so there is consistency in the "look and feel" of each.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

  • Complete, I think, depending on your approval.

Questions

  • Double disk image There's a decent picture online that graphically illustrates on Pleione's "double disk" phenomenon. You can see it here: Double disk, though you'll need to scroll down a bit. I'm not crazy about the image quality and I have no idea how to deal with any copyright issues on something like this. Do you think I should attempt to include in the article?--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

  • I'll focus on this in the next week and try to have most of it done. The Betelgeuse article has been taking up a lot of my time, but you should see some significant changes fairly soon. Thanks again for your attention on this.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those responses, looks like things are moving along nicely. I've added a couple of comments in your text above. Modest Genius talk 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for now. Will await your second review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second look

Right, I've finally managed to have another look through and have fixed a few minor things myself. Referring back to the original review, I'm striking out things that have been sorted, and leaving comments on those that still need to be looked at:

WP:WIAGA
for criteria This is a promising article, but there are several major issues that need to be addressed before receiving GA status.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Some of the prose is a bit awkward, particularly the prevalence very short sentences. I've fixed some of them, but it needs some careful copyediting (probably best to wait until the other issues are dealt with first)
It's still not brilliant, and I fixed several more poorly phrased sentences, but it's good enough for GA.
  1. B. MoS compliance:
    I split the info on the name out of the lead, since it is not a summary of what is below. Feel free to change or add to the nascent section. It certainly needs a reference though! The lead could do with an extra paragraph or so to properly summarise the rest of the article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Sources appear to be reliable. A few personal websites of astronomers are less so, but none are for contentious statements and the sites in question seem to be written by experts. The Hersiod reference could do with a link to an online version.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    I've added {{
    cn
    }} tags where I think further references are required. Several of the sources are out of date, see below.
There are now three {{
cn
}}s and one unreferenced section.
  1. C. No original research:
    No issues I can see.
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Major areas are covered, but in some cases important facets are missing. See comments below for areas where I think this needs improving.
    B. Focused:
    The Mythology section rambles somewhat, and doesn't say much about the 'Ethnological impact' 'of this star. Most of the information in this section seems to belong in the
    Pleiades (star cluster)
    article, rather than here.
    Is it really necessary to have such a long description of an illustration in a work of fiction? I'm not sure this adds much to the article.
  3. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias I can see.
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Seems fine.
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
    fair use rationales
    :
    File:M45map.jpg is missing author information, and might not qualify as PD-NASA due to ESA and AURA authorship
    File:Achernar.jpg has no source information
    File:HD 113766 circumstellar disk.jpg is tagged as PD-NASA, but has the credit line 'NASA/JPL-Caltech/JHUAPL' ie. not just NASA
    Note all of these are images whose appropriateness is discussed below
File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg does not have a fair use rationale for use in this article.
  1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
    suitable captions
    :
    The image in the infobox is not particularly clear, and has HST fields-of-view overlaid, for no apparent reason. Since this is such a commonly-imaged cluster, I'm sure you can find a blank image and add a big arrow or circle around Pleione.
    Using an illustration of Archenar on a page about Pleione is confusing. At the very least you should make it very obvious that the image does NOT show Pleione; even better would be to find a better illustration. The same issue exists with the picture of HD 113766.
    File:Taurus constellation map.png should be changed to File:Taurus constellation map.svg
    Information is important to the article must be given in the prose, not just the captions (both would also be fine).
  2. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold for a week from 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Modest Genius talk 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • All magnitudes need to state which band they refer to (UBVRI etc or 'visual').
Some of these are still missing e.g. in Note 1, just after being described as a Gamma Cass variable etc.
  • Is there really a circumstellar disk? My (admittedly non-specialist) understanding of Be stars was that the circumstellar material was ejected in all directions, though most strongly along the stellar equator. That's not the same thing as a disk though. EDIT: I should probably read some of the references from the Be star section, which might explain things.
  • The original Hipparcos reductions did indeed give a lower distance to the Pleiades, but this is now out of date after the second set of reductions in 2007. Unfortunately, the new and improved reduction did not resolve the differences. See [8]; this apparently needs to be updated on ALL of the articles on the Pleiades and Hipparcos, since they all seem to cite the out-of-date 1997 catalogue. van Leeuwen discusses the issue at some length in [9].
  • There are MANY more recent determinations of the spectral type than Pickering 1908 - indeed the article already mentions the existence of classifications beyond just 'B8'.
  • Listing mass, radius, luminosity etc as 'times solar' is cumbersome and annoying. I suggest using the L☉ etc and linking the first use to the relevant article (I've already done one of these as an example).
  • In the Be star section, what is meant by 'photospheric spectrum'? The emission certainly does not arise from the photosphere. The article says that Be stars are typically fast rotators, but provides no information on the rotation speed of Pleione. Ah that info is in the image caption. It should be moved into the text.
  • The article mentions that the disk inclination has changed due to precession, but then states that there are actually two disks, one at each angle. They can't both be correct, which is it? Or is the correct interpretation currently unknown?

Summary: Sort out the {{

cn}}s, unreferenced section (can grab a ref from the main article there), File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg and the remaining magnitudes and you're done. Modest Genius talk 19:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Response to second look

Made all the changes you recommended. I imported a sailing pic to replace the File:Fat Jon - Hundred Eight Stars.jpg, putting the latter where it belongs. The sailing pic fits well, I think, with both the mythology and etymology sections too. I studied each of your edits. Thanks. It's very helpful to have an astronomer like yourself looking over this information. One last thing: I stepped back and read the article from the beginning attempting to improve the prose where possible. Several sentences have changed. Hope it works better.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that looks good to me, I've listed the article as a GA. I'm supposed to encourage you to review an article from
WP:GAN yourself, though that's entirely optional. Congratulations! Modest Genius talk 19:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks again for your invaluable contribution to this whole process. Being new to Wikipedia, I had no idea I could even do something like this. I should also mention that
WP:GAN, although my first commitment will be to focus on the Betelgeuse article and submit it for GA review. I'd certainly welcome your input there, if you can spare the time. Anyway, I hope to get that submitted in the next few days.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pleione_(star)/GA1&oldid=1074836211"