Wikipedia:Peer review/Andromeda Galaxy/archive1

Andromeda Galaxy
This is closest large galaxy to our own, and one of the best studied. I've tried to expand it out to a decent length and put in up-to-date information of a general nature. What else do you think needs to be done to bring this up to FA quality? Any ideas? Is it too technical now? Thank you. &mdash; RJH 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOSNUM, numbers should have conversions from SI units to US customary units, and source units should be spelled out in text ("km/sec" -> "kilometres per second"). Converted numbers should use standard abbreviations and use the  (no-break space). There are a couple of weasel words like Andromeda was believed to be the, which honestly isn't a big issue and can probably be taken care of by providing a single citation. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the "was believed to be the" was already covered by a citation at the end of the paragraph. &mdash; RJH 16:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to go to sleep now, but I hope that helped.Jon513 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What does "unbarred" mean in the first sentence. It isn't even wikilinks so I can't find out what it means even if I wanted to.  (Though I have noticed it is used a lot with other galaxy articles).
 * 2) Is the word "dominant" correct in the second paragraph. All it is trying to say is biggest - why the fancy word.  Or is this more technically correct?
 * 3) The second paragraph doesn't flow well. "Due to recent findings based on improved measurements and data, scientists believe that the Milky Way contains more dark matter and may be the most massive in the grouping" should be changed to "However, due to recent...and data, scientist now believe..."
 * 4) "...by Simon Marius (1612), who is often wrongly credited as the discoverer of the Andromeda Galaxy. Simon himself did not actually claim discovery of this object; that was instead ascribed to Simon Marius by Charles Messier in 1764, who catalogued it as object M-31." would read better as "...by Simon Marius (1612). In 1764, Charles Messier catalogued it as object M-31 and incorrectly credited Simon Marius as the discoverer unaware of Al Sufi earlier work." (or should it be unawares not unaware, I don't know but I remember that they are different words somehow).  You can also add (if it is true), "The assertion that Simon Marius discovered the Andromeda Galaxy continued until Wikipedia came along and correct this horrible error"  or something less POV.
 * 5) General information second paragraph "The measured distance to the Andromeda Galaxy was doubled in 1953 when it was discovered that there is in fact another, dimmer type of Cepheid." I don't even know what that is supposed to mean! In any even, the words “in fact” are never appropriate in an encyclopedia. If it wasn't a fact you wouldn't be saying it!
 * Yes these were helpful. Thank you. &mdash; RJH 16:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed a few things in the article. I hope these improve the quality of the article on it's way to a FA:
 * 1) "structure" - M31 does have a central bar, according to recent research
 * 2) "structure" - the distorted spiral pattern is probaly the result of close interaction with M32, which can be seen by the displacement of the neutral hydrogen clouds.
 * 3) "features" - Globular Cluster One (or G1) has several stellar populations and a structure too massive for an ordinary globular. As a result, most astronomers consider G1 to be the remnant core of a dwarf galaxy that was consumed by M31 in the distant past.
 * 4) "satellites" - M32 may once have been a larger galaxy that had its stellar disk removed by M31, and underwent a sharp increase of star formation at the core, which lasted until the relative recent past.
 * 5) "satellites" - M110 does contain a dusty lane, which is a hint for recent or ongoing star formation. This is unusual for a galaxy this type.

I hope your approve these changes? Please check them for correct spelling/punctiation, since English is not my native language. DaMatriX 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes those are good changes. I had one question regarding your sentence "This is unusual for a galaxy this type." Did you mean elliptical galaxies in general? Satellite galaxies? Or dwarf ellipticals? I just assumed you mean ellipticals. Thank you! &mdash; RJH 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant elliptical galaxies in general ;) Is the article good enough to be a FA candidate? And if not, what remains to be done? I'd like to help you where I can, I have a more than general knowledge of galaxies and I read quite some astronomical papers (although I'm not able to understand more then half of them, since I'm just an self-educated amateur). I have improved some more galaxy articles, e.g. M32 and M110. DaMatriX 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it's good enough to be a "good article". I'm not sure whether it'll pass muster on the FA candidate page since they tend to be quite rigorous in their criteria. The only way to find out for sure will be to push it onto the FA candidates page. &mdash; RJH 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence
 * "Robin Barnard of the Open University has detected 10 X-ray sources in the Andromeda Galaxy, published April 5 2004, using observations from the European Space Agency XMM-Newton orbiting observatory. "

is problematice. Were the X-ray sources published? That is what it is saying. In any event, the sentence is needlessly complex. Jon513 17:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I added a reference.

The proper cite template must be used for this to be a FA. see Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations. I have started you off but you have to do the rest. Jon513 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a somewhat stupid question ;). Is it: at the core or in the core (as in "recent star formation in/at the core)? English not being my native language, as you already know.DaMatriX 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a stupid question. Since it's a distributed phenomenon it should probably read "in the core region". Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * is the galaxy visible in the northen hemisphere, southern hemispher or both. This should be mentioned in the third intro paragraph.  Jon513 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I clarified the location of the Andromeda constellation in the first paragraph, although this is redundant with the information on the Andromeda (constellation) page. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion considering the fact that almost everyone on wikipedia thinks that radius and diameter are the same. Isn't it possible to change the galaxy template, changing "mean radius" to "mean diameter"? That would solve quite some problems at once. DaMatriX 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably something that is best taken up in the talk section of WikiProject Astronomical objects. But personally I wouldn't have a problem with your proposal, as long as somebody is willing to go through all the pages and revise the value. :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Would this realy mean that in every single galaxy article the value has to be changed? Isn't there a general template for galaxy properties, so in changing the template we will change the value in any article that is containing this template? Thus, changing the value "radius" into "diameter" will change the same values automatically in every galaxy article, instantanously? Or does it realy takes some hard work to get the change done as it should?DaMatriX 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the sentence: "However, recent observations by the Spitzer Space Telescope revealed that M31 contains one trillion stars, much more than the number of stars in our own galaxy."DaMatriX 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that the long scale trillion or the short scale trillion? I usually prefer to say a million millions, for example, so it is clear. (Or else put a 1012 in parentheses.) :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's one million million I think. 1000 million is 1 billion, 1000 billion is one trillion. Note this not the case in all languages! In Dutch 1000 million is 1 miljard and 1000 miljard is one billion. But if we use the English defenition, one trillion is 1012?DaMatriX 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, I've run across that issue while chatting with somebody from Germany. The trillion page says most English-speaking countries use 1012, but the reader may be English fluent and living in a country where that is not the case. I just prefer that the intended use is unambiguous. &mdash; RJH (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay I did some final fix-ups; addressed the GA-failure issues, and submitted for GA. Thank you for the valuable, in-depth reviews everybody! &mdash; RJH (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)