 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A news item involving SN 2014J was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 January 2014. |  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Which image is which? edit
The caption for the animation refers to "the first image" and "the second image". That's not much help, since the animation is looped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.145.142 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- The one with the new object and big marking pointing at it is the second one. It's fairly obvious. Modest Genius talk 22:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not for me, seeing it first on my old Android smartphone which doesn't do animation. I didn't see the second picture, the one with the markers, until after I got home to the real computer. It makes me think animation shouldn't be used where two stills can do the job. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then that is a limitation of your mobile browser, which apparently does not support the (very) standard .gif animation. Hardly the fault of whoever wrote the caption, or a reason not to use it. GIF is the recommended format for simple animations per WP:IUP#FORMAT. I suppose it might be worth adding the two separate images further down the page, or in a gallery? Modest Genius talk 10:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not for me, seeing it first on my old Android smartphone which doesn't do animation. I didn't see the second picture, the one with the markers, until after I got home to the real computer. It makes me think animation shouldn't be used where two stills can do the job. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
What the heck does this mean edit
I didn't delete this because I'm not a jerk, but:
- The large extinction to SN 2014J unfortunately reduces its value as an observational prototype for Type Ia supernovae.
Huh? Lack of citation aside, I don't know if it's the grammar, but I don't know what this is even trying to say. The "large extinction to?" ???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:4392:5479:ED:E059:A12C (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, the sentence made perfect sense to me as was written, albeit being awkwardly phrased. However, I wordsmithed that sentence to make it comprehensible to non-astronomers. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks; the earlier version seems to have been written by someone who knew a lot more about stars than about writing for the usual Wikipedia:Audience. I mean, as an ancient amateur I understood it, but most readers wouldn't. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No x-rays edit
This talks about no x-rays detected. This should be in the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apod only show the picture. NASA PR says about this and links to preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1488 "No X-rays from the very nearby Type Ia SN2014J: constraints on its environment" (it was published at 05.2014, but still not published? cited by 1 other preprint) a5b (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- That just means it was uploaded to arXiv in May, but hasn't (yet) been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The duration of the peer review and publication processes means it's usually several months after submission, assuming the paper is good enough to get accepted. The arXiv listing says it was submitted to the Astrophysical Journal. Oh and it has at least five citations already, all from other preprints - Google Scholar isn't great for arXiv. Modest Genius talk 10:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Now published. Feel free to add it to the article. Modest Genius talk 22:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- That just means it was uploaded to arXiv in May, but hasn't (yet) been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The duration of the peer review and publication processes means it's usually several months after submission, assuming the paper is good enough to get accepted. The arXiv listing says it was submitted to the Astrophysical Journal. Oh and it has at least five citations already, all from other preprints - Google Scholar isn't great for arXiv. Modest Genius talk 10:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)