Talk:Humason 2-1

Initial decline and resubmission

This was initially declined for having unreliable sources. I believe this to be in error as upon on review of the sources they all seem incredibly reliable. As such I have resubmitted and accept the draft as wholly passing WP:GNG If Balabush would like to clarify what sources they took issue with, then the appropriate measures should be taken to rectify it. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if my first note came across as terse, that wasn't the intent. I should have laid out the specifics more clearly the first time instead of just flagging "unreliable sources," which I agree is vague and not really the right term for what's going on here.

To be concrete: the citation given for the discovery date (23 June 1992, doi:10.1086/123227) doesn't correspond to any real Humason paper I can find. He died in 1972. His actual 1921 paper on newly found planetary nebulae carries a different DOI (10.1086/123071). Separately, six references in the "Properties" and "The central star" sections all cite the same journal, date, volume and page range (A&A, 4 April 1995, vol. 304, pp. 531-540), each with a different author list attached. That's not something a single article can do.

I don't doubt this was submitted in good faith, my guess is some of the sourcing was generated rather than pulled directly from the literature, which happens... Balabush (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Guyisguy1, can you explain what's going on here? Balabush is making some pretty credible claims here about AI use concerns. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I read the sources for that object and add the source, but I my own words. Hu 2-1 has very little articles, and so I only used 3 different sources. I get the AI concern, but what actually happened is that I do not really know how to make a citation. I pulled the citation information from site and I most likely made some mistakes, like mixing up the DOI. Guyisguy1 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy I realized that I made a mistake, I thought the author was the reference in the article. And I did not realize that the references aren't supposed to be placed in the same article. I'm trying to fix my mistake now. Guyisguy1 (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you clarifying. I'm not the best at formatting references myself, otherwise I'd help. WP:REFB is a great resource. Also, the people at the WP:TEAHOUSE are super helpful if you need further assistance.

Balabush, are you good with this explanation and correction? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I just wanted to make sure the actual references check out since a planetary nebula article should be easy to source correctly given the real literature that exists on it.

@Guyisguy1, I appreciate you working on a fix. Since this is live in mainspace right now, would you mind pinging here once you've updated the references so I can take a look? Specifically I'd want to see each of those six citations in the "Properties" and "The central star" sections point to an actual, distinct source rather than sharing one journal/date/volume/page combination. Happy to help point you to WP:CITEWEB or WP:CITET if the templates are giving you trouble.

@Sulfurboy, good with leaving it as is for now while Guyisguy1 works on the fix, I'll check back once it's updated. Balabush (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, I've got it on my watchlist as well. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The comment indicates Balabush is monitoring the discussion for updates to the article’s references. Jptr11 (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jptr11, just flagging that your reply above reads like an auto generated summary of my previous comment rather than an original reply. Was this posted with some kind of script or AI tool? If so, could you switch to writing directly? Talk page discussions work best when they're a person's actual words. Balabush (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)