Template talk:Did you know/SN 1961V

SN 1961V

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}

... that both the Spitzer Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope have been used to try to tell if SN 1961V was a supernova or just a supernova impostor?

Created by JoshuaZ (talk). Self nom at 15:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

Length, format, content rules: Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source: Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interest: Pretty good as is, but see below. I think the phrase "supernova impostor" is a good hook.Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image suitability, if applicable:
ALT hooks, if proposed:

ALT1 - ... that both the Spitzer and the Hubble Space Telescopes have probed SN 1961V to check Fritz Zwicky's 1964 claim that it's a supernova impostor?Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's better written than my hook. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Length: Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vintage: Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio (images):
Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting: Easchiff (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units check It says about 9.3 Mpc away. Please provide a conversion into km. I've not checked for anything else. Lightmouse (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two plain links offered as sources. Please flesh these out with the full article information using the cite template: authors, title, etc.. Both links lead to preprints. If the articles aren't yet published, the "cite report" template may be adequate.Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/discussion:

I've updated the units to include the number of light-years. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is but for most astronomy articles about objects a bit outside our solar system we give light years and parsecs but not kilometers. See e.g. SN 1987A. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting article, but it does assume a reader familiar with the argot of astronomers. Some editing is desirable; Voisey's article from Universe Today looks well-written for a larger readership. I wouldn't hold up the nomination over this, however. Easchiff (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]