The article was kept by Joelr31 17:46, 7 February 2009 [1].
Notifying Mike Peel, Marskell, Ashill, and WilyD.
I really hate nominating interesting articles for review here, but this one is just so far from the standard. Problems with 1a, 1c, although its five references are somewhat accurate so far, and mainly, 2c. — Ceran [ speak ] 14:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I can sort out 1c and 2c, though it's (again) going to be a slow process as I have trouble with my internet connection at the moment. As far as the referencing goes, much of the information comes from Williams et al. (1996). I can also check whether Scientific results-section needs update. I cannot do much with 1a, though. Random astronomer ( talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Anyone else wishes to comment before I close this one? Joelito ( talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I found one instance of awkward phrasing: "Positioned above the atmosphere, Hubble avoids atmospheric airglow allowing it to take more sensitive visible and ultraviolet light images than can be obtained with seeing-limited ground-based telescopes (when good adaptive optics correction at visible wavelengths becomes possible, 10 m ground-based telescopes may become competitive)." I had to read it a couple of times to understand. I think the particular difficulties are "seeing-limited", which was a few too many verbs for me to parse, and the parenthetical statement. Can the bit in brackets be removed, moved to a footnote, rephrased or taken out of brackets?
As I'm not an astronomer, I was not able to decide whether the statement: "It is believed that giant elliptical galaxies form when spirals and irregular galaxies collide." requires a citation or not. Obviously, I don't know how obvious a statement it is.
Great article; nice pictures too. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Joelr31 17:46, 7 February 2009 [1].
Notifying Mike Peel, Marskell, Ashill, and WilyD.
I really hate nominating interesting articles for review here, but this one is just so far from the standard. Problems with 1a, 1c, although its five references are somewhat accurate so far, and mainly, 2c. — Ceran [ speak ] 14:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I can sort out 1c and 2c, though it's (again) going to be a slow process as I have trouble with my internet connection at the moment. As far as the referencing goes, much of the information comes from Williams et al. (1996). I can also check whether Scientific results-section needs update. I cannot do much with 1a, though. Random astronomer ( talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Anyone else wishes to comment before I close this one? Joelito ( talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I found one instance of awkward phrasing: "Positioned above the atmosphere, Hubble avoids atmospheric airglow allowing it to take more sensitive visible and ultraviolet light images than can be obtained with seeing-limited ground-based telescopes (when good adaptive optics correction at visible wavelengths becomes possible, 10 m ground-based telescopes may become competitive)." I had to read it a couple of times to understand. I think the particular difficulties are "seeing-limited", which was a few too many verbs for me to parse, and the parenthetical statement. Can the bit in brackets be removed, moved to a footnote, rephrased or taken out of brackets?
As I'm not an astronomer, I was not able to decide whether the statement: "It is believed that giant elliptical galaxies form when spirals and irregular galaxies collide." requires a citation or not. Obviously, I don't know how obvious a statement it is.
Great article; nice pictures too. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply