Jump to content

Talk:HE 1523-0901: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{astronomy|object=yes}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy|object=yes|class=start|importance=mid}}


==Needs A Picture==
==Needs A Picture==

Revision as of 23:54, 1 April 2012

WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Needs A Picture

Article needs a pic of the star.

69.171.160.150 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)real The[reply]


The artists renditon is very good and should be kept, but more astronomy pictures and graphs should be added to the article.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic infobox added

I've added a basic infobox for this star, however, among the missing information would be the stellar classification. I couldn't find any reliable information on this, and perhaps it's still unknown. I could also not find any boundaries for the approximation of its distance. — Northgrove 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy?

"HE 1523-0901 is the designation given to a red giant star," but, later in the article, we see that it's "approximately eight-tenths the size of the Sun."

A red giant that's only 1,000,000 km wide? No star so small would be visible 7,500 ly away. 68Kustom (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should really say 0.8 Solar masses. The star is a highly evolved red giant, giving it a much larger radius than the Sun and hence making it possible to see. --114.76.62.26 (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mass and size are two very different things, hence the confusion.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Also the article doesn't say 7,500 light years, it says 750 light years.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]