Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GRB 970228/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 promoted by Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010 [1].

---

GRB 970228

GRB 970228 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/GRB 970228/archive1

Nominator(s): Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the redshift for this burst was never determined, some of the characteristics that can be found in GRB 970508 are not applicable to this burst. If, however, you think there is still room for expansion, let's hear it! Also, this is the first time I've ever tried my hand at adding alt text, hopefully I didn't screw it up too badly. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues: a few minor format issues in the list of references:-

• Schilling book: the convention is to capitalise book titles thus: Flash! The Hunt for the Biggest Explosions in the Universe.
• Varendoff book: publisher location should be added.
• Varendoff book: not necessary to include the page range, as the appropriate page number is included with the citation

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support—My concerns have been addressed and I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. While the article is on the brief side, this is understandable due to the remoteness of the object and the limited time frame of the event.—RJH (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Comment—It's getting better; closer to meeting the FA criteria. Just a few more issues. Well it's a decent enough article, but unfortunately I'm not convinced it satisfies the FA criteria just yet. It just doesn't seem to have enough depth on the various subject matter. Here are a few concerns:

  • "For several years..." is unnecessary vagueness.

    Specified: 1993.

  • Are more accurate coordinates available? The epoch should also be listed.

    Done.

  • The association with the supernova event is very vague. You might expand on the significance a little.

    I have attempted to improve this section.

  • The article mentions that there were multiple peaks in the light curve, but it fails to explain the significance of these.

    That's because they are not significant in the same sense as the supernova relation. All gamma-ray bursts have unique time profiles: Some are long, some are short. Some have multiple peaks, some have only one. This statement is only meant to satisfy the curiosity of a reader who asks "what is the general shape of this burst's light curve?"

    • Understood. Unfortunately my curiosity also causes me to wonder about the root cause. I noticed there are a few papers that proposed precessing jets as the cause of these multiple peaks, so that may be interesting to some readers. But if the root cause remains a mystery, I think that would be good communicate. Perhaps it may also be good to let the readers know this is a common occurrence in GRBs, rather than being unique to this specific GRB? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    A fair point. I believe I may have found one of the papers that you mentioned, and I've added it to the article with a brief explanation.

  • The paragraph that begins "In 1993, Bohdan..." is the first to mention an explosion and matter ejecta in connection to the GRB. The reader is left to puzzle out the connection. I think this should be clarified in the text.

    Attempted to clarify by rearranging the sentence and adding some stuff.

  • The next sentence makes a statement about the interaction of the ejecta with the ISM. I think it should explain how synchrotron radiation is being created. My understanding is that this occurs by interaction of matter with a magnetic field. So how is it caused by matter-matter interaction?

    Here is a relevant sentence from an abstract for the Paczynski article: "These ejecta sweep up interstellar matter in a shock front, and electrons accelerated in the shock will emit synchrotron photons in any nonzero magnetic field." I've attempted to incorporate this into the article, though I must admit that I don't fully understand this topic, so feel free to edit as you see fit.

  • "...faded with a power law slope in the days following the burst." The relevance of the power slope law should be explained.

    Again, from my understanding this characteristic does not have some special meaning. I just didn't want mathematically inclined readers to sit there saying "Well, how did it fade? Was it logarithmic? Was it exponential? Was it linear? Why don't I have a girlfriend?"

    • Okay. Well the statement left me curious whether this had some special significance, so fact that this characteristic does not have any special meaning would also serve a type of explanation. Perhaps you could explain for the lay reader that this is a common property of many natural phenomenon? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Added some recent material about afterglow decay rates.

  • "...revealed a variable object..." You might want to explain here that the variation was in intensity, rather than some other parameter (such as size or location).

    Good point, though I decided to remove the word "variable" altogether, as it was redundant.

  • "...were best explained by a neutron star collapsing into a quark star." There is some slight ambiguity here, in that I think you mean the neutron star and the quark star are the same object at different points in time. Also, please could you clarify this phenomenon a little more? I thought quark stars were theoretical constructs. What caused the instability and why didn't it instead transition into a black hole? How is this connected to a supernova explosion?

    I've decided to remove this sentence. I had included it as an interesting alternative to the well-accepted supernova hypothesis. Upon reexamination of the literature, I've realized that there are several problems with the inclusion of this material: First is that the source used is not actually an article, but a Hubble Space Telescope usage proposal. Second is that Arnon Dar's actual journal article on the subject doesn't even mention GRB 970228. Third is that, while the Galama article is cited by a whopping 235 journal articles, the Dar article is cited by a mere 4, one of which was authored by Dar himself. FAIL.

  • "Reichart noted that the late afterglow was redder than the early afterglow..." What is the significant of the redness?

    Attempted to explain the significance of the reddening.

  • "The redshift of the galaxy was later determined to be z = 0.695." Please translate this into a distance estimate that most readers can relate to (kpc/kly). If the distance is known, this would also give some indication of the energy levels. Is this information available?

    Yes. Added.

    • Perhaps my math is off, but I get 1.28 × 10²³ km as equaling 13 Gly (with 1 ly ~ 10¹³ km). That seems a bit high for the red shift.—RJH (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Direct quote from Djorgovski 1999: "We interpret this emission line as [O II] 3727 at z = 0.695 +- 0.002. Moreover, possible emission lines are detected corresponding to [Ne III] 3869 and [O III] 5007 at the same redshift. We thus consider this redshift to be practically secure. Assuming a cosmology with H_0 = 65 km/s/Mpc, Omega_0 = 0.2, and Lambda_0 = 0, we derive the luminosity distance of 1.28 e28 cm." I just converted from centimeters to kilometers. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Yeah, it is too high for the standard cosmology. With H_0 = 70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M = 0.3, and Lambda_0 = 0.7, the distance is about a factor of two smaller. I don't know if a revised distance estimate has been made in the past decade, but considering the discrepancy, it might not be a bad idea to either look for one, or make a note that this distance calculation is for a cosmology that has been pretty securely ruled out. James McBride (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Could we just use our own calculations or would that be original research? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Yes, per WP:CALC, if it is a routine calculation. I usually add a footnote detailing the calculation steps plus a reference for the equation.—RJH (talk)
      • Okey doke. James, what was the equation you used to calculate the distance? All the conversions websites I've seen online are garbage. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    • I do not think there is an analytic solution in the case where Omega_Lambda is non-zero. I just did a quick numerical integration of the general redshift/comoving-distance relation for the standard parameters. For a flat universe,

$r={\frac {c}{H_{0}}}\int _{0}^{z}{\frac {dz'}{\sqrt {\Omega _{m}(1+z)^{3}+\Omega _{\Lambda }}}}.$

I suspect that that might be stretching WP:CALC. James McBride (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, better yet. This is definitely reliable. James McBride (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Awesome, thanks for the link! I'll be sure to keep that handy for future articles. However, I'm a bit puzzled by the terminology on the calculator. Which of the distance measurements should be used in the article? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• The comoving radial distance is the one that is used when citing a distance to some object. James McBride (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I've attempted to address all of these issues, with the exception of those that involve the infobox, which I will delve into tomorrow. Thanks for the detailed feedback. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a minor point, but there is some inconsistency in how the dates are presented in the references. For example, it includes "30 September 1999", "May 6 1997" and "1998-02-19". You might want to address that. Thank you.—RJH (talk)

    I've now employed a consistent date format. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Is Bernardini et al. (2007) worth a mention, or would that be premature? It is interesting that it mentions an "initial spikelike emission" from GRB 970228.—RJH (talk)

    Because of the incredible diversity in the observable characteristics of GRBs, researchers have proposed dozens of classification schemes over the years. Few of them go on to become mainstream science because few of them are based in any actual scientific research. Google scholar shows that this article was only cited by one other paper, and that one paper just so happens to have been authored by many of the same people. "Fake-disguised short GRBs"? Come on! That's not science. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Okay.—RJH (talk)

  • One more thing that occurred to me: usually there are a few readers/editors around who are interested in the etymology of the name. It might be good to point out that the GRB identifier is the date of discovery. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    I added a note in the lead explaining the nomenclature. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• oppose: the refrences is not a footnotes, many red links, and the article is short (just 14 kb!! this is the size of a good article not a featured). it can stay a good article, but not a featured --Abbad Dira (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC).
  • Note that the length of an article is not one of the FA criteria. It just needs to be comprehensive.—RJH (talk)
    • Also, pls see WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - on prose. Not sure about the comprehensiveness of this article. ceranthor 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment okay - beginning a read-through and will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Until this event, GRBs had only been observed at gamma wavelengths. - this sentence sticks out as when reading it I had no idea that GRBs were supposed to be exclusively gamma-rays. I think it would go better if it were slotted in after the next sentence in the lead.

• Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I know that it is not visible to the naked eye or anything, but the article doesn't mention where it actually is in the sky, apart from the infobox saying it is in the constellation of Orion. I think it would be helpful somewhere in the body of the text to say whereabouts in Orion it actually arose.

• The infobox also contains the right ascension and declination, which are its sky coordinates. They are quite precise. Do you think they should be added to the body? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. As an astronomical neophyte, they just look like numbers to me at first glance. I think in educating the general reader, that a phrase such as "just a little to the left of Bellatrix/Saiph/whatever" - we-ell, more like degrees and a compass direction but you get the idea, is a lot more enlightening. So I'd say a ref mentioning nearest bright star as a landmark would be a great addition for the general reader. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've added the coordinates to the body. Unfortunately, the reference stars used by the astronomers are themselves so obscure that they are also referred to merely by their coordinates. See this table by the Galama group for an example of what I'm talking about. I think that any attempt to find a nearby named star using only their coordinates would constitute original research. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. You can only do what the sources say, so okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, looking on target - the prose is repetitive in places but it is very hard to lose any repetition without losing meaning so exactness trumps accessibility. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - I passed this article's GA nomination, so with that in mind, a few comments:
• File:GRB 970228.jpg confuses me a bit. Which of the glowing masses is the GRB?

  Added labels. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are the redlinked people notable enough for their own articles?

  I could see them having articles some day. Bohdan Paczynski and Dale Frail are both notable enough to have articles, due in part to their contributions to the field of gamma-ray burst research. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm genuinely curious: what does the number 970228 signify?

  There is a footnote in the very first sentence of the lead which explains the naming procedure. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  Ugh, sorry. I guess I should pay attention to those... would you be opposed to moving that bit of info to the body of the article, for better accessibility? Juliancolton (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've added the same footnote to the Observations section in case people skip the one in the lead. Does this work for you? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Support - works for me. Juliancolton (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've nominated my fair share of stubby articles for FAC, so this entry's length does not concern me. I trust the nominator has determined that it is comprehensive.

Juliancolton (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Sasata (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• I noticed that the references list doesn't list a lot of recent sources, so I did a lit check. The following, not used in the article, come up in a search for the topic (i.e. the authors have listed GRB 970228 as a keyword). I am in no way qualified to assess their appropriateness, but list them here as potential extra sources (let me know if you want me to send the PDFs for any):
• Support on criteria 1b/c. Sasata (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Title: X-RAY AND GAMMA-RAY FLASHES FROM TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE? Not added. Article does not mention GRB 970228.

Author(s): Hoflich, P; Schaefer, BE

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 705 Issue: 1 Pages: 483-495 Published: 2009

Title: On the origin of long gamma-ray bursts Not added. Review article.

Author(s): van Putten, MHPM

Source: MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Volume: 396 Issue: 1 Pages: L81-L84 Published: 2009

Title: ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION AND LIGHT CURVES OF GAMMA-RAY BURST SUPERNOVAE Not added. GRB 970228 used as one of several samples in a broad study.

Author(s): Richardson, D

Source: ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL Volume: 137 Issue: 1 Pages: 347-353 Published: 2009

Title: NONTHERMAL HIGH-ENERGY EMISSIONS FROM BLACK HOLES BY A RELATIVISTIC CAPILLARY EFFECT Not added. GRB 970228 not mentioned in article.

Author(s): van Putten, MHPM

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS Volume: 685 Issue: 1 Pages: L63-L66 Published: 2008

Title: Gamma-ray burst afterglows: luminosity clustering at infrared wavelengths? Not added. GRB 970228 used as one of several samples in a broad study.

Author(s): Gendre, B; Pelisson, S; Boer, M, et al.

Source: ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Volume: 492 Issue: 1 Pages: L1-L4 Published: 2008

Title: On the search for the origin of short gamma-ray bursts Not added. Review article.

Author(s): Eze, RN

Source: ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH Volume: 40 Issue: 8 Pages: 1233-1235 Published: 2007

Title: GRB 970228 and a class of GRBs with an initial spikelike emission Not added. Same non-mainstream classification scheme as mentioned above in discussion with RJHall

Author(s): Bernardini, MG; Bianco, CL; Caito, L, et al.

Source: ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Volume: 474 Pages: L13-L16 Published: 2007

Title: Gamma-ray burst dust echoes revisited: Expectations at early times Added. Very nicely demonstrates that this burst continues to change how we think about GRBs.

Author(s): Moran, JA; Reichart, DE

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 632 Issue: 1 Pages: 438-442 Part: 1 Published: OCT 10 2005

Title: The synoptic swift synergy - Catching gamma-ray bursts before they fly Not added. GRB 970228 used as one of several examples of supernova–GRB correlations. Article discusses idea for future studies rather than new analysis of previous bursts.

Author(s): Heyl, JS

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 592 Issue: 1 Pages: 401-403 Part: 1 Published: JUL 20 2003

Title: Galactic distribution of merging neutron stars and black holes - prospects for short gamma-ray burst progenitors and LIGO/VIRGO Not added. GRB 970228 used as example of important long-duration bursts, not relevant to this short-duration burst study.

Author(s): Voss, R; Tauris, TM

Source: MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Volume: 342 Issue: 4 Pages: 1169-1184 Published: 2003

Title: Relativistic jets in collapsars Not added. GRB 970228 only mentioned in introduction.

Author(s): Zhang, WQ; Woosley, SE; MacFadyen, AI

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 586 Issue: 1 Pages: 356-371 Published: 2003

Title: Are gamma-ray bursts due to isotropic fireballs or cylindrical jets? Added.

Author(s): Huang, YF; Tan, CY; Dai, ZG, et al.

Source: CHINESE ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS Volume: 26 Issue: 4 Pages: 414-423 Published: OCT-DEC 2002

Title: Neutrino, neutron, and cosmic-ray production in the external shock model of gamma-ray bursts Not added. GRB 970228 is not mentioned in the article.

Author(s): Dermer, CD

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 574 Issue: 1 Pages: 65-87 Published: 2002

Title: Asymmetric supernovae from magnetocentrifugal jets Not added. 12 pages of material which mentions GRB 970228 only in the summary.

Author(s): Wheeler, JC; Meier, DL; Wilson, JR

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 568 Issue: 2 Pages: 807-819 Published: 2002

Title: Light curves and spectra of dust echoes from gamma-ray bursts and their afterglows: Continued evidence that GRB 970228 is associated with a supernova Added.

Author(s): Reichart, DE

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 554 Issue: 2 Pages: 643-659 Part: 1 Published: JUN 29 2001

Because this burst was the first with an observed afterglow, it (like GRB 970508, among others) is often referred to in passing in new material. I've often searched for articles about a particular burst only to find it mentioned once in an article, usually along the lines of "Ever since the discovery of afterglows with GRB 970228, blah blah blah something else blah blah sorry Cryptic, not what you're looking for". This sort of material may be useful for the History of gamma-ray burst research, but it very rarely sheds any new light on the burst itself. Nevertheless, I will make an effort to go through the material you've gathered and see what I can add. Thanks for taking the time to do this! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and well sourced article. Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  One comment. You do not need to use <cite id=></cite> markup to create HTML anchors. You can simply use |ref= parameter in cite XXX templates. Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  I never knew that, thanks! I've switched over all of the references except for the circulars, which don't use citation templates. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic, have you had time to go through the list of potential sources and determine if any are useful? Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through about half of the source list, working my way from bottom to top. I've found a few that were helpful and I've expanded the article accordingly. I should be finished going through the list by the end of this week. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.