Talk:Milky Way/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and concern of reviewing it, as the GA nominator of it I actually I didn't contribute to the article but it's sad that for such an article that is well made and well written and lacks no sources or citations to not be a good article. So I thought it's about time to re-nominate it. Thank you again. Megahmad (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that it took a few days, I'm not an expert on this topic and had to acquaint myself with it. The article is certainly comprehensive and accurate, but some sections may lack stringency. Here are my notes:

Section "Galactic center"
 * That section is a bit confusing. It is not made explicit what the difference between the "bar" and the "bulge" is, but this may be essential for the understanding of this section.
 * OK – now there is a good hint in the introduction.

Section "spiral arms"
 * Counts of stars in near infrared light indicate that two arms contain approximately 30 % more red giant stars than would be expected in the absence of a spiral arm, while two contain no more red giant stars than regions outside of arms.[66][67] – and further below – Two surveys of near-infrared light, which is sensitive primarily to red giant stars and not affected by dust extinction, detected the predicted overabundance in the Scutum–Centaurus arm but not in the Carina–Sagittarius arm.[66][67] -> Thats the same information, in two differend paragraphs. Should be merged. Perhaps simply remove the first sentence (that sentence seems a bit out of place, it does not explain what this observation means and may irritate the reader).


 * Paragraph: Another interesting aspect is the so-called "wind-up problem" of the spiral arms. … An inline citation for this paragraph would be nice. We may should remove the word "interesting" because its evaluative.

Section "halo"
 * Paragraph: The Chandra X-ray Observatory has provided evidence that the halo contains a large amount of hot gas. … It is not clear if the "halo" this paragraph is refering to is only the hot gas halo, or the halo as defined in the sections above. The section does not fit well into the rest of the article.


 * "While the disk contains gas and dust which obscure the view in some wavelengths, the halo component does not." – The halo component contains no gas: This is inconsistent to other statements in the article, e.g. "the halo contains a large amount of hot gas". The whole paragraph may is better merged with the first and introduction paragraph of the "halo" section, because it does not recite certain recent studies but is more general.

Sections "Sun's location and neighborhood" and "age"
 * There still is a paragraph labeled with "citation needed" and "original research?" in the "Sun's location and neighborhood" section, and there is an "not in citation given" label in the "age" section; this should be resolved.

Section "Environment"
 * The section Environment is not well equiped with inline citations. Especially, an inline citation for this statement would be great: "The stream is thought to have been dragged from the Magellanic Clouds in tidal interactions with the Milky Way."


 * "In January 2006, researchers reported that the heretofore unexplained warp" … this paragraph, reciting a single study, seems a bit to detailed in comparison with the rest of the article; it could be much shorter.

Section "Etymology and mythology"
 * The section seems a bit unbalanced. There is a whole paragraph about the sanscrit, but no mention of other cultures as described in Milky Way (mythology). Perhaps we should simply merge the sanscrit section with the latter article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your points, actually you're right and most of what you've said is right and needs corrections in the article, you look at things different than I do, maybe I was fast to nominate it and I should've checked it better before nominating it, anyway, it's good to point these things out so other people beside me and you can work them out and make a better article, we can work to improve it and I am sure it will be a GA in no time. Is there anyway that more people can see your notes (above) on this matter so they can improve the article? Thanks for your effort and it's really appreciated. Megahmad (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've addressed several of the points. Particularly, I think I've addressed the spiral arms, halo, location and neighborhood, age, and environment comments. The list of satellite galaxies in environment isn't explicitly cited, but I think that's OK as there's nothing likely to be challenged in there. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 22:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time ASHill, these are really good improvements to the article, and thanks for Jens Lallensack for the throughout review of the article, I'm sorry if I may not be able to contribute to the article even though I am the one who nominated it as GA, and that's because I am still learning about the topic and I found out that the article was good enough for me before nominating it. Anyway, it's nice to see that the article is being improved even if it doesn't end up being a GA. Megahmad (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't interpret the review as a fail; just some comments needed to reach GA status. The normal procedure is to give editors a week or so to address issues before a final failure is assessed. (Obviously, it's Jens Lallensack's call, not mine.) An outright fail wouldn't normally have a relatively short list of points to address like this. I'll try to address the remaining points, though the etymology stuff is way outside my area -- would be great if someone else helped! —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 01:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, my point was that Jens Lallensack's revealed issues are good for the article so people can help to remove them like you did with some of them. And the article is not at all far from being a GA. It just needs some little work. Megahmad (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you find my comments helpful. Of corse its not a fail, nor was the nomination prematuraly, its absolutely normal for an article this magnitude that issues will pop up during review. Now there are only two issues left. I'm will think about what to make with the Etymology and mythology section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph or section that contains: illustrating the fact that most stars are less bright than absolute magnitude 8.5. and it has "Citation Needed" and "Original research?" tags at the end, can we add this source for it and remove the tags: the pdf file at www.astronomie.cz/data/2009/04/00-atlas-85.pdf It's talking about the whole magnitude and distances about the stars. Megahmad (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a different source (which is used on star), tweaked the text, and removed the or tag. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks! Megahmad (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I still have no ideas how to improve the Etymology and mythology section, but this issue may is compatible with GA criteria. I will pass the article now. Thank you, everybody, for your great work on this very important article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work Jens and to everyone who contributed to improve this article especially Alex. Well done guys. Megahmad (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed; thanks, Jens, for the helpful review and Megahmad for the nomination which prompted us to clean up several things. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)