Talk:Messier 87/GA2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it seems a good labour-saving act to continue where we left off last review. The article as noted is much improved. I'll have a last read through again to see if I can see anything else:

• One thing that strikes me is trying to get a sense of how large or small the galaxy is compared with our milky way. Do any sources have that comparison or discuss the size?
  • I added an estimate of the extended stellar halo for the Milky Way.—RJH (talk)
• Link or explain the word collaminated.
  • Sorry, that was a typo. I linked it.—RJH (talk)

• Within the galaxy, silicate grains are expected to survive for no more than 46 million years because of the X-ray emission from the core -I think this would leave a lay-reader wondering why and thirsting for more knowledge. Can we quench that thirst at all?
  • The answer appears to be that they don't know. It is either destroyed by the hostile environment, or ejected from the galaxy. But I added a statement with the original source.—RJH (talk)
    • Better. is it worth adding that it is unclear as well? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I used the word "may" to indicate uncertainty.—RJH (talk)

• The combined mass of dust in this galaxy is no more than 70,000 times the mass of the Sun - again, it is hard to visualise this unless there is some comparison - this is a little, right? Maybe a note on the Milky Ways (footnote if you like)
  • Added.—RJH (talk)

• Messier 87 may have encountered Messier 84 in the past. - again, curious statement - do we just know this from trajectories or is there other interesting evidence.
  • I tried to clarify and expand upon the text.—RJH (talk)

• The info on globular clusters is good - is there any other that can be added? Types of stars? More cool ones? etc.
  • Do you mean for the clusters?—RJH (talk)
    • In the galaxy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, well I searched for information of that nature but I wasn't too successful. I'll check again.—RJH (talk)
        • I didn't have much success beyond what is true of any elliptical galaxy. It consists of old, population II stars.—RJH (talk)
          • Probably worth mentioning as a one-liner then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
            • I put together a paragraph. Thanks.—RJH (talk)

• Just reminded me - is this number of globular clusters typical for elliptical galaxies, or is it still unusual?
  • I believe the number of globular clusters is proportionate to the size of the galaxy. M87 is not a typical elliptical galaxy.—RJH (talk)

• I was just winding up when I saw -"This image shows the eruption of a galactic “super-volcano” in M87" as the image caption. Is there info on this that can be added. Amazing pic it would be good to discuss.
  • I revised the caption to give a straight-forward explanation.—RJH (talk)

Otherwise looking very promising. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - in summary, I think it meets GA criteria. I'll cross my fingers on some more star population attributes turning up for FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the review.—RJH (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Other

"The galactic envelope extends out to a radius of about 490 kly, where it has been truncated." in the second paragraph needs a better wording. Truncated by what? A physical phenomenon, some arbitrary definition, or an artefact from observation equipment? 88.112.37.71 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.