Talk:Radio galaxy

Rationale
The article Radio galaxy should be made into a separate article from Active galaxy. Radio Galaxies are a sub-category of Active Galaxies, as are quasars, blazars, and BL Lac objects. Basically, "Radio Galaxy" and "Active Galaxy" are not interchangeable terms.


 * This is now done. I can see a couple of things wrong with it as it stands, but I'll let the world loose on it and see what happens Mhardcastle 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Say what?
The introductory paragraph is so full of technobabble that even as a physician, my brain hurts reading it and it actively drives me away from even skimming the rest. Needs to be rewritten at a more appropriate level for lay users, despite the technical nature, as specified by Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.167.34.67 (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but you raise an important issue. This is a very good helpful advanced article and it should not be butchered. Many articles should have two versions, an advanced version and a simpler explanatory version for the large majority of the public. What if you as a physician were writing or reading an article on DNA? What type of article would you want? Both types have great value. Detailed articles or advanced articles could also have a simpler explanatory introduction section. On this particular subject there is a lot of complicated data to analyze, what is going on is still not well understood, and an honest expert writer could well feel uncomfortable writing a simple explanatory summary at this time.


 * I am adding to the discussion of the first paragraph. (Note that the preceding comment was written by someone else.) The first paragraph currently says, "They have luminosities at radio wavelengths up to 10[exponent]39 W between 10 MHz and 100 GHz." I believe the sentence has a misplaced modifier and should read, "They have luminosities up to 10[exponent 39] W at radio wavelengths between 10 MHz and 100 GHz." I am not familiar with the topic, so can someone please confirm? I checked the source but did not understand it well enough to find the info. Thanks. –  Kekki1978  (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I looked in the edit history and found where the clauses got out of order. I reversed them to how they were before. –  Kekki1978  (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)