Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hubble Deep Field/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 17:46, 7 February 2009 [1].

Hubble Deep Field

Review commentary

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'm not sure why I've been notified, as I've never actually edited the article... I suggest that the appropriate wikiprojects are notified (e.g. WP:ASTRO).

However, I would agree with you that the article needs significant reworking if it is to stay as a featured article, especially with respect to references. I would volunteer to do some of that, but I really don't have the time at the moment. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notified several people I knew were experienced with these types of articles from WP:ASTRO, and from personal experience. Sorry to bother you, if you feel like I've intruded. That goes with the rest of you, too. —Ceran [ speak ] 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it: it's always better to over-notify than under-notify, and as it's turned out I've had some time to do a bit of work on the article. Mike Peel (talk) 23:06, 26 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]

I will help after 10 January, when I will have access to journals again (now I am out of work). Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and prose. 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that prose issues are sorted (if not, please point out areas which need improvement), and there are now only three parts which need citations (marked with [citation needed]) which should be fixable. Hence the article should be kept featured. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else wishes to comment before I close this one? Joelito (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed as I can judge. Ruslik (talk) 13:52, 6 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.