Talk:Herbig–Haro object/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll take a look. First up I will jot questions below and do some straightforward copyedits. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put something about their shape or dimensions in the lead. It is hard to get an idea of what the object is otherwise.

Done.--AhmadLX (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"small" is a tricky word to use...I mean they are much bigger than solar systems for instance. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--AhmadLX (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Herbig and Haro met at an astronomy conference in Tucson, Arizona. - the date of this should be included

Date added--AhmadLX (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

link "accretion disk"

Done.--AhmadLX (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~They can evolve visibly over quite short astronomical timescales...~~ ~~- this doesn't mean anything to the lay reader, and is ambiguous anyway ("short" again....), maybe put the specific time frame in (i.e. how quickly changes can be seen).~~

Done.

~~In the Numbers and distribution, you should add notable examples - maybe nearest, easiest to see (brightest), largest/smallest, or just unusual examples.~~

Added two famous examples.

~~The stars from which HH objects are emitted are all very young stars~~ ~~- this needs some sort of age estimate in years.~~

Done.

Also explain how they are catalogued (HH...) and by whom.

There is no central body to catalog them, several people have compiled and published their catalogs with latest and largest being Reipurth, 2001 (link given in external links). As for naming convention, I had read some time ago that number in "HHn" represents the discovery number of the object; 1st one HH1, 50th HH50 etc. But I cannot find the source now. I will keep looking for the the source and add this info whenever I've found it.

Yeah, surely someone has talked about this somewhere...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read this in a journal publication or a review article some time ago. But I can't find the publication now :D

Done. Although I couldn't find the publication I was referring to, I found the earliest catalog of Herbig and it mentions the naming thing.AhmadLX (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~we generally don't do galleries, so incorporating images into the text is preferable~~

Done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

link or explain " class I binary star" and "class 1 protostar" - or rejig so this comes before the definition somehow (which is currently further along in the article)...

Linked.

Also, Haro found these objects to be invisible in infrared...yet later on they are described as being visible in infrared. Also, surely the light indicates they are hot in some way?

This is because of two factors: 1) Back then they had less sensitive detectors, 2) They were photographing the emission patches, which lacked IR emission, as they didn't know back then if there was protostar or any mechanism of emission generation. Now we have better detectors and the section you are referring to (probably Source stars) says so about stars themselves. AhmadLX (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Earwigs copyvio clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: