This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Galaxy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Galaxy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 3, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
This article states that the number of stars in a typical galaxy is believed to be around 100 million. But the Milky Way contains upwards of 100 billion stars, which is 1000 times the supposed average. Now, that may be correct - I'm no expert - but it does seem improbable that our galaxy is so atypical. It seems more probable that someone somewhere has written 'million' instead of 'billion'. 220.235.71.22 ( talk) 05:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Hubble's year of classification of galaxies should be corrected from 1936 to 1926.
Hubble's classification paper, published in 1926. [1] SkyWatcher2025 ( talk) 16:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The section here on types and morphology is almost four pages; it links Galaxy morphological classification as the main page but it is two-ish.
It seems to me that the Galaxy morphological classification is about the classification systems rather than their results? Johnjbarton ( talk) 17:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I cannot access this article but as a review in an major journal is seems like a good source to be discussed in the intro to "Properties".
Review:
Abstract:
Johnjbarton ( talk) 19:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The section on "Isophotal diameter" had some citation needed tags, but the more I read to look for references, the less I liked the content in the section. Some of it was misleading and I deleted it.
I will delete two more paragraphs. One is on Redman's 1937 paper (should have cited his 1938 correction) but only cited the primary source and incorrectly (AFAICT) credited Redman with defining a standard. Instead the paper compares two methods of measure diameters of things-not-yet-called-galaxies, one of which is the isophotal comparison method. This is a notable historic paper for isophotal techniques, but needs a secondary reference and not a whole paragraph in Galaxy.
Similarly there is paragraph on Holmberg that is almost certainly not correct in that his method differs from modern technique. But the reason to delete here is not incorrectness but rather too much detail for an article on Galaxy. We don't need a partial history of isophotal techniques here. Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The intro has a lot of interesting material about the numbers of stars and galaxies that does not appear in the article. Conversely parts of the article do not appear in the intro. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This newly discovered galaxy formed before EGS-zs8-1: GLASS-z12 Jcgam ( talk) 19:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I reverted a change that included a link to a May 2024 newspaper article entitled "We've Just Seen The First Galaxies in The Universe Being Born". This content is summary of a news article about primary publication. It's not encyclopedic. The only information in the content is the date really. Johnjbarton ( talk) 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Galaxy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Galaxy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 3, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
This article states that the number of stars in a typical galaxy is believed to be around 100 million. But the Milky Way contains upwards of 100 billion stars, which is 1000 times the supposed average. Now, that may be correct - I'm no expert - but it does seem improbable that our galaxy is so atypical. It seems more probable that someone somewhere has written 'million' instead of 'billion'. 220.235.71.22 ( talk) 05:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Hubble's year of classification of galaxies should be corrected from 1936 to 1926.
Hubble's classification paper, published in 1926. [1] SkyWatcher2025 ( talk) 16:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The section here on types and morphology is almost four pages; it links Galaxy morphological classification as the main page but it is two-ish.
It seems to me that the Galaxy morphological classification is about the classification systems rather than their results? Johnjbarton ( talk) 17:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I cannot access this article but as a review in an major journal is seems like a good source to be discussed in the intro to "Properties".
Review:
Abstract:
Johnjbarton ( talk) 19:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The section on "Isophotal diameter" had some citation needed tags, but the more I read to look for references, the less I liked the content in the section. Some of it was misleading and I deleted it.
I will delete two more paragraphs. One is on Redman's 1937 paper (should have cited his 1938 correction) but only cited the primary source and incorrectly (AFAICT) credited Redman with defining a standard. Instead the paper compares two methods of measure diameters of things-not-yet-called-galaxies, one of which is the isophotal comparison method. This is a notable historic paper for isophotal techniques, but needs a secondary reference and not a whole paragraph in Galaxy.
Similarly there is paragraph on Holmberg that is almost certainly not correct in that his method differs from modern technique. But the reason to delete here is not incorrectness but rather too much detail for an article on Galaxy. We don't need a partial history of isophotal techniques here. Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The intro has a lot of interesting material about the numbers of stars and galaxies that does not appear in the article. Conversely parts of the article do not appear in the intro. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This newly discovered galaxy formed before EGS-zs8-1: GLASS-z12 Jcgam ( talk) 19:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I reverted a change that included a link to a May 2024 newspaper article entitled "We've Just Seen The First Galaxies in The Universe Being Born". This content is summary of a news article about primary publication. It's not encyclopedic. The only information in the content is the date really. Johnjbarton ( talk) 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
References