Talk:UDFj-39546284

z
ref1 said nothing about z, ref2 wrote 10.3, how did you get 11.9? Pista7 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is in need of substantial rewording, given that recent studies favour a lower redshift interpretation for this object e.g.  (this illustrates the danger of reporting photometric redshifts as if they were definite - there are quite a few articles that suffer from this problem currently - really they should be described as "candidate very distant objects", and the redshifts as being at best approximate). 90.205.25.55 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)