Wikipedia:Featured article review/Galaxy/archive1: Difference between revisions

Galaxy

Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Galaxy
• Featured article candidates/Galaxy Science Fiction/archive1

• Featured article review/Galaxy/archive1

Notified: WikiProject Science, WikiProject Astronomy, Drbogdan, Abductive, SkyFlubbler, XOR'easter 2021-02-22

Review section

Nominating for FAR per [1] and [2]. The article is probably not updated, and most of the sources are from before 2010; feels like there are so a lot of topics out there about the properties of galaxies that arent added or covered at the article yet. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a notice left by Hog Farm on the talk page in 2021, which was not responded to. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if this will be an easy save, but I suspect it will be a straightforward one. The thing about science is that what's been really established stays established, so sources from 2007–2010 can still be fine. Things do get updated what with new telescopes and all, but I'm more worried about sources being mediocre (e.g., press releases) than I am about their being stale. I did a little tuning-up and will try to find the time to do more. It's the start of the semester, though, so no promises in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the source age being less concerning - I left that comment in 2021 but several FARs in this topic area since then have convinced that research moves fairly slowly in this topic matter. Hog Farm _Talk 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would still be a lot of work to do. I do have a lot of free time and might be able to help, but we still need to explore a lot of topics since the current article still lacks details in key areas (how galaxies evolved, what are their inner workarounds, specific features like arms, bars, haloes, interstellar medium, hierarchy from groups to clusters). I would deduce that if we want to push for newer sources, we can include a separate section for "Current areas of research" or something like that, and would include sources newer than 2010. But established science should not be totally removed from the article; if anything, things should be added way more due to the lack of detail in its current form. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. An image relating to the difference between observed and predicted rotation curves is tagged as needing references. DrKay (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Image replaced. XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist unreferenced passages remain. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything explicitly tagged as needing a citation has been addressed now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @XOR'easter: I have added additional cn tags for uncited text, which will need to be addressed. I have also struck my delist above because work is ongoing in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. Those all look manageable. I took care of a few by re-using existing references and digging items out of linked articles. I don't think the others will be harder; I'm just ... tired. XOR'easter (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All sorted now, thanks to Johnjbarton. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I find the criteria for this FAR are too vague and emotional, with wording such as "probably not" and "feels like". More specific global issues need to be provided that can be formally addressed before resorting to a delist. Praemonitus (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. It is not yet established that the top-level article Galaxy needs to have more detail than it currently does about, e.g., Galaxy formation and evolution, or any other topic where a whole sub-article could exist/already does exist. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be some work taking place so I think holding off decisive action for the moment is prudent - alot has happened in 10 years, especially with JWST so not sure to what extent old theories have been updated and what new consensus is. If I get a chance will have more of a read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like the article will look much better if all the citations are not in the lead just like other FAs. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delist. If Hogfarm is satisfied, I'm striking my vote, unless lead issues are also resolved for consistency on other FA articles. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Other FAs do have citations in the lead. See Speed of light, Mars, Planet, Pi, Charles Darwin, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  String it. Its all up to Hogfarm and someone else now. Thank you working at the article. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. I think the article looks good now. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 11:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've taken care of that last cn tag you added. I did change that paragraph because the information was not fully updated with JWST stuff. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be useful if I gave this a non-expert review with an eye towards getting this in a state where it can be closed as kept? Hog Farm _Talk 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like a good idea. XOR'easter (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm busy tonight and this coming weekend so I can't guarantee when I'll be able to get to this (also have to finish up my own content project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Plum Point Bend) but I'll try to have a review posted within the next week. Hog Farm _Talk 19:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. It might be a good idea to drop a reminder note at the WikiProject Astronomy talk page when you do (I'll try to do that if I'm online then). XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, starting a review here:

• Supermassive black holes are mentioned in two different paragraphs in the lead in a largely duplicated manner
• Since the lead is suppose to only hit the most important points, is the size of the Milky Way black hole really relevant material for the lead?
• " This includes the Milky Way, whose core region is called the Galactic Center" - I don't think italicizing Galactic Center here is compliant with MOS:ITALICS
• "based on the assumption that galaxies follow Sérsic's law" - link Sérsic's law?
• "Only about 5% of the galaxies surveyed are truly isolated." - since this is a specific statistics, shouldn't it have a source?
• ""Circular and Fixed Elliptical Apertures: The Petrosian and Isophotal Photometry"." - reference formatting issues, should include the publisher as well
• " "William Rosse". parsonstown.info. March 24, 2021. Retrieved January 11, 2024." - this looks like somebodys' personal website; what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
• ""Discoveries - Highlights | Tracing the Growth of Galaxies". February 6, 2017." - citation information should include publisher
• "SkyServer: Algorithms"." - should contain the publisher and other citation information as well
• ""Signatures of the Earliest Galaxies". Archived from the original on August 6, 2020. Retrieved September 15, 2015." - also needs the publisher included in the citation
• " "ATLASGAL Survey of Milky Way Completed". Archived from the original on March 24, 2021. Retrieved March 7, 2016." - ditto as above
• " Rieke, George Henry (2012). Measuring the universe: a multiwavelength perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. ISBN 978-0-521-76229-8." - any hope for a more specific page range?

I think that's it for my review. Issues are mostly with reference formatting and the lead. Hog Farm _Talk 02:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of bullet points 3 (removed italics), 4 (linked Sérsic's law), 10 (added ESA as publisher) and 11 (added ESO as publisher). Sgubaldo (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I condensed the lede to mention supermassive black holes only once. XOR'easter (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the "Circular and Fixed Elliptical Apertures: The Petrosian and Isophotal Photometry" reference issues (bullet point 6). Sgubaldo (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the issues with "Discoveries - Highlights | Tracing the Growth of Galaxies". February 6, 2017." (bullet point 8). Sgubaldo (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed issues with "SkyServer: Algorithms" (bullet point 9). Sgubaldo (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the line about Rosse with better sources. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rieke book is one of those cases where the cited source spends many chapters backing up the statement we give very briefly, so I added the page number for the book's own brief synopsis in its preface. A couple potential sources for the topic of isolated galaxies: [3][4]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"For comparison, the Milky Way has a diameter of at least 26,800 parsecs (87,400 ly) and is separated from the Andromeda Galaxy (with diameter of about 152,000 ly), its nearest large neighbor, by 780,000 parsecs (2.5 million ly.)" - this specific information is only found in the lead (where it is not sourced). I would recommend removing or adding/sourcing in the body of the article. Besides that, I think the article has been improved enough for a keep. Hog Farm _Talk 17:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced distance to Andromeda. Diameters are already sourced in the isophotal diameter section. I've clarified in a note that the diameter refers to the D₂₅ standard, removed the Andromeda one from the lead and cited the Milky Way one. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]