Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Galaxy/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [1].

Galaxy

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

Review section

edit

Nominating for FAR per [2] and [3]. 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

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 28 January 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: [4][5]. 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Galaxy/archive1&oldid=1222182307"