Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GRB 970508

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:29, 14 April 2009 [1].

---

GRB 970508

Nominator(s): Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've successfully brought this article through a very rigorous GA review by the very vigorous Wronkiew. It is a very short article, but I believe it is sufficiently comprehensive without going into the absurdly technical details. There are no gamma-ray bursts which have been brought to FA yet (this is even the first GA, I believe), so I don't really have a reference point. Oh well. It's good to WP:BEBOLD, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review

• Fix the disambiguation links, found with the links checker tool in the toolbox.
• External links check out fine with the links checker tool in the toolbox.
• Book refs that use multiple pages should be formatted as pp. not p.
• Other ref formatting checks out fine with the WP:REFTOOLS script.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck resolved issues. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - Oppose pending grammar improvements. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• this was the first measurement of the distance of a gamma-ray burst. - shouldn't that be the distance to a gamma-ray burst?
• Until this burst, astronomers were in disagreement over how far away GRBs were occurring. - tense - don't they still occur?
• Unambiguously - wouldn't 'unequivocally' be better?
• Dale Frail should be announced as an astronomer

• There are more instances of minor grammatical problems throughout the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the comments you've mentioned. Any other issues? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a read through the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "satellite registered a gamma-ray burst lasting approximately 15 seconds" - should be 'that lasted'

    Why? Doesn't sound wrong to me.

    Lasting - it's still happening. Lasted - it happened. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • "The burst also happened to occur within the field" - might be better read as 'also occurred within'

    Well, I wanted to emphasize that this doesn't always happen, but I suppose "happened to occur" is somewhat awkward.

  • "Dale Frail, an astronomer working with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Large Array, was contacted by Enrico Costa of the BeppoSAX team and began making observations at a wavelength of 20 centimeters within four hours of the burst's discovery." - it isn't perfectly clear who began to make observations here, and would it perhaps be better to say "within four hours....Dale Frail...."?

    Rewritten.

  • "Frail contacted Stanislav Djorgovski who began making observations with the Hale telescope several hours later. " - perhaps 'Djorgovski who several hours later began to make observations...'?

    Hrm, I see where the ambiguity arises, but your proposed change reads somewhat awkwardly.

  • "conducted a more extensive analysis of the data, but he was also unable to identify a new light source.[4]" - a new light source separate to GRB970508, or the same?

    Rewritten.

  • "Djorgovski collected observations of the region again" - should be 'djorgoovski again collected observations...'

    Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the article needs a pretty significant improvement to the quality of the grammar, but it otherwise looks ok to me. Until it sees a rewrite I think I'll have to oppose - but it the article is rewritten I'd happily change that view. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Righty-o, I believe I've addressed each of your issues. I've tweaked the whole Observations section, so you'll want to have another look at that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    You'd have to go right through the entire article. It would take me at least an hour to read the rest and make my observations and I don't have the time. Perhaps you should enlist the aid of a copyrighter - its an interesting article but the grammar is holding it back from FA. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't have the time to give an article a critical read-through, what's the point of commenting at its FAC? I'll try to touch up the article where I can, but if it gets to the point where you're really only willing to say "The grammar is bad" without giving examples, I wouldn't really consider your oppose to be a reasonable one. You say it would take you an hour to make comments? So be it. Divide that hour into chunks of 2 minutes, if you must, and I will patiently work with you until you are satisfied. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    You're certainly not being rude :) I have read through it, but to list the grammatical improvements I'd like to see would take much more time than I have. I'm not a copyeditor but there are folk on Wikipedia who are, and it may be something that they're more inclined to do. I hope this doesn't dissuade you from working on it though, I know nothing about gamma ray bursts but I found it interesting all the same. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    At this point, it seems much of the text will be expanding/changing due to Ruslik's concerns. I believe the best course of action would be for me to concentrate on his concerns until he is satisfied, find a good objective copyeditor to run through the article, then notify you to revisit the article/FAC. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I've read through again and corrected what I feel are the most obvious grammatical problems, but there are sections that as a layman I do not understand. I'm unconcerned with the technical units and terminology, but some aspects could use minor changes to make obvious what is being said:

• • In the lead, I think you might consider separating the explanation of what a GRB is from the observations made - so create a new paragraph after the 2nd sentence.

    Split into a new paragraph.

  • "GRB 970508 was also the first with an observed radio frequency afterglow." - first what? **:First burst.
  • "By analyzing the fluctuating strength of the radio signals," - is signals the correct word here - who is signalling who?

    I'm quite certain that radio signal is the correct term. "Radio signal" is a noun, not a verb.

  • "The first afterglow to be discovered was the X-ray afterglow of GRB 970228.[2] The afterglow was detected by BeppoSAX, an Italian–Dutch satellite originally designed to study X-rays" - the first GRB afterglow ever to be discovered? Or was this an afterglow discovered during observations of 970508? And was BeppoSAX used to discover the afterglow of 970228, or 970508? It isn't quite clear right now which discovered which.

    Tweaked it slightly.

  • I've just noticed that you've been busily reverting my edits, while I've been making them (and have not yet finished - at least allow one the opportunity to make changes and then proof-read his edits, to make further corrections). If you're not willing to allow one to help, I see no reason why one would continue to do so. Good luck. My oppose remains, not for this reason, but because the article is still confusing, and the grammar is demonstrably poor. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    The changes you made were mostly very bad. I'll assume that's because you aren't familiar with the technical language employed required by this kind of article. Don't take it personally. Keep in mind that my goal is here is not to insult you, nor is it to blindly accept your criticism in the hopes of earning the bronze star. The goal is to make GRB 970508 the best possible article that it can be. When your suggestions/edits are consistent with that goal (which, contrary to what you may believe based on my actions, is often the case), I will acknowledge them as such, just as I have for Ruslik, Wronkiew, Fasach Nua, Dr Pda, and everyone else who has participated here. When I believe that your suggestions/edits are not consistent with that goal, I will ignore/re-edit them mercilessly, just as Wikipedia suggests at the bottom of the edit page. The best course of action here is not for you to walk away or get frustrated, but to continue to identify sources of confusion such that we can work together to clear up the confusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    The changes I was making were not yet finished, it is both inappropriate and premature to suggest that they were 'very bad'. Common decency would suggest that despite your objections you should have waited until I had finished and proof read the article before making your own edits - if you had done so I think this discussion would not be taking place. Making mention of the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit window is ironic to say the least. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    There is no point in continuing this discussion. List your objections/points of confusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    By the way, it is poor form for you to strikethrough any issues raised. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Unstruck. Strike them yourself when you are satisfied; I assumed you would be. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support from Dr pda: I went to a seminar on gamma ray bursts a few weeks ago! Onto the article:
  • The article does a good job of explaining the significance of this particular gamma-ray burst.
  • Good to see correct use of nbsp's. The image is also correctly licensed.
  • I would suggest moving the time of discovery into the first sentence. When I read GRB 970508 was detected at 21:42 UTC by my first though was "on what date?" Moved.
  • I would also add some sort of explanation of the afterglow to the brief description of a GRB, e.g. A gamma-ray burst is a highly luminous flash of gamma rays, the most energetic form of electromagnetic radiation. It is followed by an "afterglow" of less energetic electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays, visible light, or radio waves, which lasts for a longer period than the burst. Obviously the wording needs work. (Actually I've just seen there's a similar sentence in the lead of Gamma-ray burst, which could be stolen.) This would probably suffice to obtain the terms "X-ray afterglow", "optical afterglow", and "radio afterglow" which are not really explained later in the article. I stole a sentence from Gamma-ray burst.
  • Italian-Dutch should have an endash not a hyphen. Endash'd.
  • Suggest dropping the last three words of in other galaxies at cosmological distances as redundant.

    Hrm, I disagree. I think it's important to mention that detectable GRBs can occur anywhere in the universe, not just in the nearby galaxies. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    My concern was that "at cosmological distances" was somewhat technical jargon for "at distances which are large on the scale of the universe", which was (a) not really explained by the link to cosmology, (b) somewhat redundant since other galaxies are large distances away from us and (c) mentioned only briefly here in the lead. However the surrounding text has since been expanded, to make the "large distance but very high energy" idea clearer, so I don't have an issue with it now. Dr pda (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • With regard to the argument over the distance scale, the fact that one GRB was determined to be extragalactic does not logically preclude others from being closer. Perhaps you could expand on why (or or at least state that) the two options were mutually exclusive.

    I've rewritten and expanded, let me know what you think. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Yes this makes it clearer. Except that now this information is only in the lead, not in the body of the article, which violates WP:LEAD. Dr pda (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've transferred the information to the Redshift section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Dail Frail should be introduced as an astronomer in the lead as well. Introduced.
  • Add some sort of gloss like the space probe Ulysses. Gloss'd.
  • suggest adding ...working at the Very Large Array radio astronomy observatory. Added link to NRAO.
  • After brightening, the afterglow faded with a power law slope over approximately 100 days. This eventually ceased altogether to reveal the burst's host—I think this needs a bit of tweaking. The afterglow doesn't have a slope, and was it the ceasing of the power law slope or of the afterglow which revealed the source of the burst?. Perhaps After initally brightening, the afterglow faded over approximately 100 days, following a power law behaviour. It eventually faded altogether and revealed the burst's host... Reworded.
  • Is it really necessary to include who insisted upon analyzing the spectrum alone? Nope.
  • Do the sources actually use ergs? I would have expected the SI unit, Joules.

    Yep, it's ergs. Here's the exact quote: "This possibility follows from the recent analysis of GRB 990508 by Frail, Waxman and Kulkarni (1999), who find that the total energy is only 5×10⁵⁰ erg. At the same time Rhoads (1999b) finds that GRB 970508 was not strongly beamed, as its afterglow had unbroken power law decline for over 100 days. The total gamma-ray emission was at least 3×10⁵⁰ erg for this burst (Rhoads 1999b)....Of course, GRB 970508 was not a typical gamma-ray burst....We have no direct information for the ratio of these two energy forms [gamma-ray and kinetic] for any other burst."

    OK, if that's what the source used, that's fine. Dr pda (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    One other thing I should mention: The book does actually say "GRB 990508" as opposed to "GRB 970508". I assumed that this was a typo for two reasons: First, that whole section discusses GRB 970508. Second, the conference at which this article was presented ended on May 6 1999, two days before this supposed GRB 990508 would have occured. I realize that Bohdan was an extremely talented astronomer, but he's not that good. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the limit the lack of the lyman alpha forest places on the redshift before giving the precise value for z? (Assuming of course that both redshifts are for the absorbing matter rather than the source of the burst. If this is not the case then it should be made clear)

    Hrm, not necessarily. I've rearranged it slightly differently, what do you think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    OK, that makes it clearer. Dr pda (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • radio waves being bent by interstellar physics—do you mean plasma rather than physics here? Yep.
  • What sort of publication is the following? I can't tell if it's a book or journal article or something else:

    Paczyński, Bohdan (1999). "Gamma-Ray Burst–Supernova relation". M. Livio, N. Panagia, K. Sahu Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts: The Greatest Explosions Since the Big Bang: 1–8, Space Telescope Science Institute.

    It's a conference proceedings. I used {{cite conference}}.

    Ah, I see. Might be a good idea to add the ISBN to make it easier for people to work out how to get hold of it. According to Worldcat it is ISBN 0-521-79141-3

    Yarp, my mistake. I had that in citation as isbn=0-521-79141-3 instead of id= ISBN 0-521-79141-3. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    I should really have looked at this in edit mode :) Dr pda (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • In the heading "Radio Observations", observations should not be capitalised.
• Dr pda (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I assume the IAUC Metzger ref is "Metzger 1999a" from the short notes? There is no date in the references. Should give a retrieval date and publisher (IAUC in this case) also. Also, you say "Metzger 1999a" or "Metzger 1999b" in the notes, but the publication dates are 1997 in the references. Which is correct?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the circular citation, though I'm still not entirely sure what the correct format for a circular is. I've also corrected those dates from 1999 to 1997; that was my mistake. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. When in doubt, cite it like a web page... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Request: Would it be possible to create articles for some of the redlinks? I know it's not of central importance, but they sure ugly up a FAC. Seegoon (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a standard disclaimer, redlinks are not an actionable objections to FAs. All the same, I wouldn't mind seeing the red links stubbed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I might eventually try to whip up some articles on these guys. Flash! has some interesting tidbits on Stanislav Djorgovski, among other astrophysicists. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The article satisfies FA criteria now. Oppose for now:

1. The lead contains information that is not mentioned in the main text (A gamma-ray burst is a highly luminous flash of gamma rays, the most energetic form of electromagnetic radiation, often followed by a longer-lived "afterglow" emitting at longer wavelengths (X-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and radio).) and thus violates WP:LEAD.

   Now included in the first paragraph of Discovery.

2. The article is not fully complaint with 1(b). In particular it should provide better context for this discovery. I want to see a short section about BeppoSAX satellite (and possible about Ulysses) and more information about GRBs in general.

   Hrm, do you suggest I just plop a pargraph into Observations? Or should I start a new section called Background or some such?

   I will be satisfied with a paragraph. One of the main goals of BeppoSAX was investigation of the nature GRBs. This discovery was not accidental, it was planned. Ruslik (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   I've added an introductory paragraph. I decided not to include Ulysses, but I did expand upon that bit later on.

3. What was the energy of gamma-rays detected by BeppoSAX and Ulysses?

   The Ulysses detection wasn't published. It was cited in Pian's article as a private communication from Kevin Hurley. I will try to find more information about the gamma-ray detection.

   Whew! I managed to find some information on the energy according to BeppoSAX and BATSE. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Regarding optical afterglow. What was the spectral range, in which it was observed?

   I've added a paragraph about this. I must admit that I understood very little of what I read, so I may not have found exactly what you were looking for. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   If I could interrupt here—this added paragraph is a bit jargon-heavy. I would suggest something like

   About 5 hours after the burst, the apparent magnitude of the object—a measure of its brightness—was 20.3 ± 0.3 in the U-band (the ultraviolet region of the spectrum) and 21.2 ± 0.1 in the R-band (the red region of the spectrum). This is approximately the same apparent magnitude as the moons of Pluto.^{Citation needed, see Apparent magnitude}The afterglow reached its peak luminosity in both bands approximately 2 days after the burst was detected—19.6 ± 0.3 in the U-band at 02:13 UTC on May 11, and 19.8 ± 0.2 in the R-band at 20:55 UTC on May 10. (A lower apparent magnitude corresponds to a greater brightness)^{Citation needed} Several optical spectra were obtained at the Calar Alto Observatory at wavelength ranges of 4300-7100 Å and 3500-8000 Å, though no emission lines were identified in any of these spectra.

   There is probably a better choice of object for the apparent magnitude comparison though.Dr pda (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   I like your paragraph, it's much more user-friendly than the crap that I churned out. However, I have two problems with making a magnitude comparison: First, comparing a specific band's magnitude with a the total magnitude of another might be misleading or confusing. Second, I haven't found any mention of a comparison in the journals. To come up with our own comparison would be WP:OR. Besides, if the reader really wants to get a better sense of this scale, s/he can just follow the link to apparent magnitude. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Dr pda (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Alright, changed. What do you think, Ruslik? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   I actually do not think that a simple comparison is an OR. Ruslik (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Although the Caltech team and a competing team in Amsterdam were hesitant to publish... What is "Amsterdam team"? Is this the team of Djorgovski?

   It actually refers to Jan van Paradijs, Titus Galama, and Paul Groot. Later tonight I'll try expanding the observations section to include more about what they did. If it doesn't seem to fit, we can just delete it altogether, I suppose. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Further analysis of the burst by Frail, Waxman, and Kulkarni indicated that the total energy released by the burst was approximately 5×1050 erg, They assumed that the radiation was isotropic, did not they? This should be clarified.

   I'm fairly certain that they assumed it was isotropic, but the source doesn't explicitly say one way or the other. It does mention Rhoads's paper and his previous analysis of the beaming, so I've added that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Although the isotropic distribution of bursts suggested that they do not occur within or nearby the Milky Way This is wrong. Isotropic distribution is fully compatible with the Milky Way origin of GRBs, provided that they are located in the halo, not in the disk.

   Whoops, you're quite right. Don Lamb made it very clear in his debate with Paczynski that the isotropic distribution only excludes the disk. Corrected. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Was the host galaxy of this GRB investigated? And what results were obtained?

   Woot, I added a nice little section about the host galaxy and incorporated some information from Observations. Is this what you had in mind? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   So the red shift of the host coincides with the first redshift determined from the absorption lines? Ruslik (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I've clarified that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Several scientists, Rhoads, Waxman, and Kulkarni, need to be properly introduced. Also, I left a comment in the lead section. Vigorous? Wronkiew (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've tweaked the 'disagreement' statement, do you find it less awkward now? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've introduced Rhoads and Reichart. I took out Waxman and Kulkarni. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• "When did When did Rhoads become involved in studying the GRB?" Erm, not sure how to answer this? Lots of astronomers study every GRB. He wasn't involved in the discovery of GRB 970508, but he still wrote a paper on it. Does the article imply that the astronomers mentioned are the only ones to have studied the burst?
• "Who did he suggest this to?" Reworded.
• "Did it rule out the models? Did other astronomers agree that the models were invalidated?" Hmm. Here, I'll post the direct quote for you:

  "If these claims [the two energy calculations] are correct then for this gamma-ray and kinetic energies were comparable, and this rules out the popular 'internal shock' models, which are very inefficient in generating gamma-rays (e.g. Kumar 1999)"

• "Lyman-alpha forest needs a short explanation." I agree. Unfortunately, I really don't understand the topic myself. I can't explain lyman-alpha forests without mentioning the lyman series and lyman-alpha lines, neither of which make any sense to me. What do you suggest?
• "Awkward again." Reworded.
• "This is a very confusing conclusion. Are there multiple types of GRBs, or did this end the debate in favor of one type?" Rereading this section of Flash!, there really isn't any mention of multiple types of GRBs. I guess I just assumed that the two theories weren't mutually exclusive. Everything I've read about this burst and about other bursts that occurred later seems to treat it as evidence that there is one type of burst which occurs very far away. I've removed the bit about non-mutually-exclusive theories. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• "'Explained as being' is awkward." I disagree (strongly), but I suppose you can have Parrot of Doom hold me down while you reword that sentence, if you'd like. :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have some concerns about this article, which keep me from supporting a promotion. The layout is chronological, which is appropriate for an article about an event. However, in several places I noticed that information is restated several times, either with increasing accuracy, or to explain who observed what. Some of the astronomers are introduced, contribute a bit of information about the GRB, then are never mentioned again. Galama, Groot, and Paradijs, in particular, don't make any contribution at all to the subject. The proliferation of characters makes the article difficult to follow, and I think a reorganization is in order. I recommend that you trim out the people who did not make significant advances in our understanding of this event. Then you need to separate the chronology of the observations from the chronology of the event. You have two stories to tell in the article. One is about the pretty fireworks, the relativistically exploding galactic core, and the odd variations in energy output. The other story is about the competing models, the astronomers and satellites, the calculations, and the radiation's journey over a good part of the universe. I should be able to start with a question and be able to find the section in the article where it is answered just by looking at the table of contents. Right now, if I want to know more about "relativistically expanding fireballs", I can find it in "Radio observations", and I would have not thought to look there. If I want to know more about where in space the event occurred, I can find it in "Host galaxy", which is perfect. If I want to know how bright the host galaxy is, I can find the information easily enough, but it is presented as a story of the observations, not as fact. Where would I find an estimate for the total energy produced by the event? To sum up, the prose is good and the story of the astronomers is organized well, but you need to trim some of the irrelevant detail and better organize the information about the event itself. Wronkiew (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  Alright, fair enough. Here's my idea for a new layout: Discovery stays as it is. Observations to briefly describe how each relevant piece of information was determined. Characteristics to describe aspects of the burst itself (energy, distance, apparent magnitude). Host galaxy stays as it is. If any of those sections gets too cluttered, we can just add subsections to divide it up in a similar manner to how it is presented now. I'll try implementing this later today. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hokay, I've attempted to rearrange the content. Thumbs up? Thumbs down? I realize some of the phrasing might be a little wonky now that the paragraphs are in a different order, so once we settle on a good layout, I'll go through and rewrite stuff as necessary. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Looks good, although you're right that you have some work left to do on the prose. Also, it's not clear what information I would find in the "Implications" section. You might find some good ideas for the section layout in the comet FAs. Wronkiew (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've changed Implications to Distance scale and emission model. Better? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes. From a brief look through the article, you still need to move some content from "Characteristics" to "Observations". Wronkiew (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hrm. Were you referring to the pargraph about the redshift? Or about the U-band/R-band magnitudes / spectra? Or both? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

images Academia is a rich source of free images, the image can be illustrated with images of the observatory, diagrams of red shift, equipment... the graphical content to brighten up the article is here on wp, you dont even have to look for it. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke, I've added pictures of BeppoSAX and the VLA. Do you think it needs any more? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The new images look great, however the two Hubble images are indistinguishable unless they are right next to each other, giving the appearance that you have included the same image twice. You could try cropping the galaxy in the second image so it displays at full resolution as a thumbnail. Not a major issue though. Wronkiew (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem with cropping either image is that it might give the false impression that the host galaxy was significantly larger than the afterglow (or vice versa). The value of having both images at the same size is that it allows the reader to make an accurate comparison between the two, but I suppose that's hard to do when they're not next to each other... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fasach Nua has responded here, he will not revisit. For all purposes of discussion, this concern was addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm very close to supporting but I'd like to see each sentence that mentions a number or figure have an inline cite per WP:V. --mav (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Great article. --mav (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.