Talk:HH 46/47/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 20:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Images.
- Are all free use.
- Are relevant and well captioned.
Is stable.
References
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Can you find replacements for cites 5 and 12 please.
- Hi, thanks for taking up the review. Ref 5 and 12 are not wikipedia based references but are research article and review article respectively. --AhmadLX (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
My apologies. I mistakenly clicked on the journal titles and then failed to engage my brain.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cite 1 takes me to a search page. Could you provide a link to the actual source of the data you are citing.
- Unfortunately that is not possible. VizieR links to specific entries dont work by copy-pasting. One must enter object name (HH47 in this case) in the search box. You can verify this by clicking this link that I have copy-pasted from HH47 entry page. --AhmadLX (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I have had a play with this source. It seems to give the information for each of HH 46 and HH 47 and not HH 46/47. However, HH 46/47 would clearly split the difference, and the issue is doubtless my inexperience with the source. On balance I shall pass lightly over the question of accessibility.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Prose.
- "HH objects": to quote the MoS "When an abbreviation is first used in an article, give the expression in full followed by the abbreviation in parentheses (round brackets). Thereafter the abbreviation can be used alone".
- Done.
- The section title "History" sounds as if it is the history of HH47/48. A better title would be "history of observations", but can I recommend "Observations"?
- Done.
- "In this model winds from..." I would suggest that you go with 'stellar winds', as it is not actually what an average reader would think of as "winds".
- "Due to its impact on the field..." Could you clarify a little what you mean by "field" in this instance?
- Clarified.
- "... would collide with surrounding medium..." Should that not be either 'media' or 'the surrounding medium'?
- Done.
- " invisible at visual wavelengths"? How about, "not detectable at visual wavelengths" or similar?
- Done.
- "Upon impact the jet..." Upon impact with what?
- Done.
- "This leads to shocks within the jet, making it visible" Why and/or how do the shocks serve to make it visible?
- Elaborated.
- "The counterjet is redshifted (moving away from Earth) and is invisible at visual wavelengths due to dark cloud." "due to dark cloud" implies that it is invisible because it is behind the dark cloud. "Redshifted" suggests it is invisible for a different reason. Which is it? And could you rephrase "invisible at visual wavelengths"?
- Done.
- "A little farther..."? 'A little further away...'?
- "average jet density is roughly 1400 cm-3" I suspect that you have missed something here. I also suspect that you mean '1400 cm3'.
- Density here is number density. I have linked it in the article. Also, units are okay.
D'oh!
- I have copy edited. Please check the diff carefully and let me know of anything you are not happy with.
- Thanks for copy editing. Very constructive and useful. I have reversed a couple changes that affected meaning. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
A fascinating, educational, well written and well referenced article. If you could resolve the issues above we shouldn't be too far from moving it forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- @AhmadLX: Even better on rereading. A worthy addition to your collection of GAs. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
