Wikipedia:Peer review/Messier 87/archive1

Messier 87

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because, it has been a good article for over seven years and has been improved all along. To my mind it is good enough to be nominated for Feature Article Status. But before that, I would like to request feedback from others if it is really as good as I think or if it needs further improvements before being nominated as such.

Thanks ubedjunejo (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

Looking now - does look in okay shape at first glance....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence, "M87 continued to be called an extragalactic nebula for many years thereafter, but by 1956 it had been identified as an E0-type galaxy" - could do with some expansion - e.g. who called it an E0 galaxy and on what evidence did they do so?

Hi, thanks for your comments. As for first one, regarding designation as nebula/galaxy, I have found a couple papers from 1950s. Earlier of them (published in 1954) mentions M87 as nebula, while the latter (published in 1956) calls it an elliptical galaxy, but the authors do not mention the grounds for calling it a galaxy, which means its status as galaxy was established prior to that. The latter is given as reference to the statement you have mentioned. It is not clear exactly when and how it began being labelled as galaxy rather nebula. But it should be somewhere in between 1954 and 1956. I will keep looking for it. Thanks. ubedjunejo (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 21:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have any satellite galaxies? If not, mention there are none.

Done Cas Liber! It does have satellites and I have mentioned them in the article with references. You may have a look. Please share if you have any other ideas. Thanks--ubedjunejo (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fucherastonmeym87

Could someone please add this https://cseligman.com/text/atlas/ngc44a.htm#4486 to Messier 87's Observation history section? According to the linked sorce, it states that Astronomer Johann Gottfried Koehler discovered Messier 87 and not Charles Messier. Is there more information to conform this?--Fucherastonmeym87 (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✗ Not done: Thanks for your comments. Most sources, including NASA and other sources given in the article, credit Messier for the discovery and do not mention Koehler. The author of the website you pointed to, doesn't give any sources for this claim either. In my view, it can be only mentioned if several reliable sources are found. If you find other sources, please add the information to the article. Thanks --UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about this?:http://www.klima-luft.de/steinicke/ngcic/persons/koehler.htm --Fucherastonmeym87 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the link. The author of the page claims to have recently discovered that M87 was found by Koeher. As such, this is original research. If he published this discovery and if you can come up with the publication, regardless of whether it attracted attention or not, it can be mentioned that "according to German astronomer XYZ, Koehler was first to discover M87.[ref]" or something like that. If he published and got significant approval from others in the field, more or less equal weight can be given to both sides in the article(in this case more references will be required). If he hasn't published his research, it should not be included. Thanks --UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 22:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]