Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gamma ray burst/archive1


 * 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 not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Gamma ray burst
I'm nominating this because it is comprehensive, and has proper inline references, appropriate images, and summary structure. Gamma ray burst is already a good article, and is rated high importance by WikiProject Physics. - Jehochman Talk 15:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to read the entire article yet, but I do have a question about the lead. What billion are you referring to - long or short scale? - Mgm|(talk) 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As commonly used today 10^9. - Jehochman Talk 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Object for now. I have a few concerns:
 * In some respects I find the Gamma-Ray Bursts: Introduction to a Mystery article to be more comprehensive and (in places) a somewhat easier read for the lay person. This article covers does much of, but not all, of what is in the NASA article. I think the WP article should be at least as good.
 * There are too many single-paragraph sections.
 * The article does not explain why isotropy rules out an origin in the local group. Or at least I didn't find an explanation.
 * The "Galactic vs. extragalactic models" does not explain why a "natural" model is more preferable than an "ad-hoc" model.
 * The "Extragalactic nature of GRBs" section states that the furthest GRB burst observed came from 12.3 GYr away, close to the beginning of the observable Universe. It then states that "many GRBs could actually have come from even higher redshifts". So what is this asserting? Is there a distribution of luminosities? Or are you speculating that the observable Universe may actually be much larger, which is why most are too faint to gather a spectrum?
 * The "GRB Jets: collimated emission" section starts out in a confusing manner. "Narrow jet emissions are widely believed to be the case, as of 2007." The case of what? What is a "a jet break in their light curve"? To me this entire section needs significant clarification.
 * How about including one or more graphs of the light curve?
 * This article discusses the evidence of the link between supernovae and gamma ray bursts. I only see that mentioned in the "Notable GRBs" section. Can't some of those be worked into the text?
 * Isn't there some thought that a short GRB may simply be a slightly off-axis view of a long GRB?
 * There's no mention of the HETE, RXTE or INTEGRAL missions.
 * Thank you. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I may need help from an expert with some of these things.  Hopefully somebody will volunteer, but I'll do my best in the meanwhile. - Jehochman  Talk 16:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment. I read the first few pages and I already bumped into multiple grammar problems - not necessarily errors, but still issues that could make it hard to read. I recommend you let the watchful eye of the WikiProject League of Copyeditors pass over the article. - Mgm|(talk) 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * " Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the featured article director may ignore it." Without examples of your concerns, it may be hard for the nominator to understand what needs to be fixed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you insist I can get my hardcopy of the article and try to formulate some examples, but my concern is already actionable, by involving the league of copyeditors. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in the League, but I've already edited the article, so we should probably get somebody else to look over my work. They don't accept requests for copy editing until all other objections have been satisified.  I suggest we wait a bit to see what else surfaces, then I'll get this taken care of. If you want to point out specific passages that need work, I'll fix them myself. - Jehochman  Talk 13:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Pass & support
 * On the basis that it's OK.
 * Yes I agree http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/bursts.html is written far better.
 * "probably the most luminous events in" weasel wording right from the start.
 * The article is not ready and shouldn't really be here. Just my modest opinion. Leranedo 05:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * " Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the featured article director may ignore it." You've given one example of a possible weasle word, but the remainder of your oppose comments aren't actionable. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary weasel word removed. Good catch. - Jehochman  Talk 01:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Pass Leranedo 07:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.