Talk:Messier 87/GA2


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it seems a good labour-saving act to continue where we left off last review. The article as noted is much improved. I'll have a last read through again to see if I can see anything else:


 * One thing that strikes me is trying to get a sense of how large or small the galaxy is compared with our milky way. Do any sources have that comparison or discuss the size?
 * I added an estimate of the extended stellar halo for the Milky Way.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Link or explain the word collaminated.
 * Sorry, that was a typo. I linked it.&mdash;RJH (talk)


 *  Within the galaxy, silicate grains are expected to survive for no more than 46 million years because of the X-ray emission from the core -I think this would leave a lay-reader wondering why and thirsting for more knowledge. Can we quench that thirst at all?
 * The answer appears to be that they don't know. It is either destroyed by the hostile environment, or ejected from the galaxy. But I added a statement with the original source.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Better. is it worth adding that it is unclear as well? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the word "may" to indicate uncertainty.&mdash;RJH (talk)


 *  The combined mass of dust in this galaxy is no more than 70,000 times the mass of the Sun - again, it is hard to visualise this unless there is some comparison - this is a little, right? Maybe a note on the Milky Ways (footnote if you like)
 * Added.&mdash;RJH (talk)


 *  Messier 87 may have encountered Messier 84 in the past. - again, curious statement - do we just know this from trajectories or is there other interesting evidence.
 * I tried to clarify and expand upon the text.&mdash;RJH (talk)


 * The info on globular clusters is good - is there any other that can be added? Types of stars? More cool ones? etc.
 * Do you mean for the clusters?&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * In the galaxy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I searched for information of that nature but I wasn't too successful. I'll check again.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * I didn't have much success beyond what is true of any elliptical galaxy. It consists of old, population II stars.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Probably worth mentioning as a one-liner then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I put together a paragraph. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk)


 * Just reminded me - is this number of globular clusters typical for elliptical galaxies, or is it still unusual?
 * I believe the number of globular clusters is proportionate to the size of the galaxy. M87 is not a typical elliptical galaxy.&mdash;RJH (talk)


 * I was just winding up when I saw -"This image shows the eruption of a galactic “super-volcano” in M87" as the image caption. Is there info on this that can be added. Amazing pic it would be good to discuss.
 * I revised the caption to give a straight-forward explanation.&mdash;RJH (talk)

Otherwise looking very promising. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - in summary, I think it meets GA criteria. I'll cross my fingers on some more star population attributes turning up for FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the review.&mdash;RJH (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Other
"The galactic envelope extends out to a radius of about 490 kly, where it has been truncated." in the second paragraph needs a better wording. Truncated by what? A physical phenomenon, some arbitrary definition, or an artefact from observation equipment? 88.112.37.71 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 