Talk:Webb's First Deep Field

Where in the sky

Just for reference, could we get the RA/Dec coordinates of this part of the sky?  Denelson83  02:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Denelson83 sorry it's not letting me reply to you directly in this talk page for some odd reason

anyway, you may know better than i do if this is the right information at all, but according to the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (if i'm reading this right), the coordinates are 284.993575, -23.708009 [1] Ayyydoc (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"As it appeared 4.6b years ago"

Does this picture not depict the galaxy at different times, and different stages of evolution (if the scales involved are big enough?) due to the varying distances the light has traveled? Does anyone have accurate estimations of the ages? 102.219.79.151 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Came here to make this (or a similar) point about this phrase: It is inaccurate and unworthy of us, as the image actually shows how that section of the sky appeared six months ago (or whenever exactly it was recorded). The light left its sources 4+ billion years ago (and much longer ago in some cases ~ the point of the whole exercise), but in now way can we say that is how it was nor how it appeared then. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

We're not really talking about how that section of the sky looked like, but how a "think" looked like, that is, it's actual appearance. However I agree there's a bit of ambiguity here as some objects might be younger/older depending on the distance, and not all objects are uniformally far away at the same distance. BeŻet (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that the light travels (generally) unimpeded through space -- what do you think would make it change in the intervening 4.6 billion years? That is the entire point. Think of it as a snapshot that is traveling through space -- the snapshot will not change. The snapshot eventually reaches you. Although it is correct to say that the snapshot reached you (reached the telescope) 6 months ago or whenever it was received -- it is ALSO TRUE to say that the snapshot is an unaltered glimpse of what was there 4.6 billion years ago. If the light had been impeded, blocked, changed, absorbed and re-emitted, distorted, deflected, etc. the image (snapshot) would be very, very different. So -- think of the primordial light as a non-changing snapshot (a Polaroid! LOL) traveling through space ... taking 4.6 billion years to get to you. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I've already updated the article for SMACS_J0723.3-7327 because of this. This galaxy cluster, which was the central target for this image is located at a redshift of z=0.390. First of all this gives us a lookback time of ~4.35 Gyr (not 4.6 Gyr as it's stated on NASA's website (https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-delivers-deepest-infrared-image-of-universe-yet), but it could be easily an error made by the article writer). Also lots of articles over the internet cites this as "this cluster is located 4.6 billion light-years from Earth", which is even worse, since the z=0.390 redshift gives us a proper distance of ~5.12 Glyr. (All these values were obtained using the cosmology determined by the Planck 2018 results.) Masterdesky (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

These kinds of small adjustments are needed, of course, but the general point remains. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

And of course the cluster is no longer where it was 4.6 billion years ago -- which is why the language is loose. Agree 100 percent on the minor adjustments. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

References

a grain of sand held at arm's length

How much is that in football fields? Or, snark aside, can we get an actual angle? -- Seelefant (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Table 6 in the paper by Repp and Ebeling referenced in the SMACS_J0723.3-7327 article gives an angular separation of about 2 arcminutes between the BCG and second-brightest galaxy, FWIW. 142.113.134.91 (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"Grain of sand" / "speck of sky" is an important fact about the image that the average reader won't know. An actual angle would be great to include if there's an RS for it, but it will be meaningless to the average reader. Levivich^[block] 15:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

debatable. most people I know do know degrees. ;) -- Seelefant (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Googling around, a grain of sand has a range of sizes from 0.02 to 2 mm and an average arm is about 25 inches, or 635 mm. Performing simple calculations yields a range of angles from 0.0018° to 0.18°. Obviously this is a large range, because apparently grains of sand can vary by two orders of magnitude (a factor of 100). With the range of angles this large, adding this range of angles to the article would only add confusion. So unless NASA releases the exact angular extent of the photo, it's probably better not to add a possible angular range, and just leave the reader with the impression that it's a very small angle, at most 0.2°, which would correspond to the largest possible grain of sand that could be found. --Banana Republic (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 0.2° is probably way too large of an estimate, as the moon's angular extent (as seen from Earth) is roughly 0.5°. I doubt that the angular extent of this photo is 40% of the angular extent of the moon. I would assume that the angular extent is a lot closer to 0.002° than to 0.2°. --Banana Republic (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

References

First image taken or released?

Should this not say that it was the first operational image by the JWST to be released to the public? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Was there a prior operational image that was not released to the public? Levivich^[block] 16:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

They could have been taken in any order and this was the one of the six chosen to be the teaser. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Floydian

"This image [name of pic] represents the one of six images released by NASA [date of release]"

my two cents worth TEMarc4real (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

I feel that the image should be in an infobox of some sort; is there an infobox of space images or the like? Thanks, Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

i thought so too to be honest. there probably is an infobox, but one thing i DO know: none of the other deep field articles have infoboxes. i dunno if that's for lack of trying or if there's a consensus, but that seems to be how it goes. Ayyydoc (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's just that no one has created one yet. Category:Astronomy image articles (and subcategories) doesn't have very many articles. Levivich^[block] 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to ask around, but I have some experience in Templates and might be able to create an infobox for astronomy images. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Help:Designing infoboxes. You probably already know this but if you want to create a new one, the easiest thing to do is probably to fork (copy) an existing one (the closest one you can find), and then modify it as needed. Feel free to ping me if you want any help; I've never made an infobox but I have some familiarity with templates generally. Levivich^[block] 18:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I found an infobox for it: Template:Infobox galaxy cluster. We could implement that into the page. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

that'd be really awesome it'd really be beneficial Ayyydoc (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed it. Webb's First Deep Field is an image, not a galaxy cluster, so the infobox made no sense. SMACS 0723 is a galaxy cluster, and the SMACS 0723 article has a galaxy cluster infobox, but that isn't appropriate here. Also note that SMACS 0723 takes up perhaps 1% of this image. I checked articles for other famous astronomical images, e.g., Hubble Deep Field, and there doesn't seem to be any relevant infobox type to use. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is SMACS 0723?

It would be useful to identify which part and how much of the image is SMACS 0723. In the absence of other information, I assume that SMACS 0723 is the bright spot at the center of the photo and consists only of the 3 (or 5) barely visible galaxies within that bright spot. Is that correct or does SMACS 0723 consist of a different or larger area? Smallchief (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

great question !! to my understanding, the entire image depicts SMACS 0723 Ayyydoc (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

To paraphase an old cliche: A picture without a thousand words to describe it is just a picture. Smallchief (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Distance and lookback time

I've already commented this info on the "As it appeared 4.6b years ago" section here, but the "4.6 billion years" value is not accurate, nor for the distance of the galaxy cluster, nor for the "as it appeared 4.6 Gyr ago" section. I'm aware that this figure is what NASA/JWST originally published discussing this image, but it can be shown with routine calculations that it's inaccurate.

There are quite a few distance and time measures exist out there, but here we should use the proper/co-moving distance (that are the same when observations are made from $z=0$)

$d_{C}(z)={\frac {c}{H_{0}}}\int _{0}^{z}{\frac {dz'}{E(z')}},$

when discussing the actual distance of the cluster from Earth and the light-travel distance/lookback time/lookback distance

$d_{T}(z)={\frac {1}{H_{0}}}\int _{0}^{z}{\frac {dz'}{(1+z')E(z')}},$

when describing how old the snapshot of this cluster is that JWST just captured. Due to the expansion of the universe these two are obviously different on these billion-year timescales.

Using the Planck 2018 results of $H0\approx 67.36$, $\Omega _{m}\approx 0.3153$, $\Omega _{k}=0.0$ and $\Omega _{\Lambda }\approx 0.6847$ and the cluster's known redshift of $z=0.390$, we can calculate the values above and get

$d_{C}(0.390)\approx 5.12\ \mathrm {Glyr} ,$

$d_{T}(0.390)\approx 4.35\ \mathrm {Gyr} .$

These results mean that the SMACS J0723.3-7327 is 5.12 billion light-years from Earth and the JWST image shows "how it appeared 4.35 billion years ago". Using different cosmological parameters, these results will differ. I'm not sure if this was the cause of NASA publishing this "4.6 billion years" figure, or whether it's a result of bad internal communication or something else. In my opinion these values above should be the correct ones. Masterdesky (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If the sources say 4.6, we say 4.6 per WP:NOR. Levivich^[block] 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really agree, since first, WP:NOR explicitly states that routine calculations are not original research. Second, I already cited (above) a published article from ApJ that clearly says SMACS 0723 is measured at a redshift of 0.390, which unambiguously corresponds to the values I gave above (assuming Planck 2018). Even the official JWST website gives a closer value of "4.24 billion light-years" (and cites the z=0.390 value) on the information page of the image in the "fast facts" infobox (https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/035/01G7DDWW7FSRX0GAP43WFZ9JNH). The difference usually arise from using a slightly different set of cosmological parameters. I sticked with the Planck 2018 results, since those are the most widely accepted currently.

I still understand the unfortunate situation that the whole internet is now flooded with this "4.6" value, it plastered all over NASA's websites, the sources for that figure are clearly abundant. (Although they obviously just copied a single original source.) Masterdesky (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that NASA knows something you don't? These are not "routine calculations," and even if they were, we can't use our own calculations to contradict an WP:RS. If NASA's made a mistake, take it up with NASA, get them to issue a correction, or find another RS that provides a different figure, and then we can update our articles. Levivich^[block] 19:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That's why I linked the description of the image itself on JWST's official website that contains the following: "Distance | Redshift of cluster is z=0.39 (about 4.24 billion light-years)".

My main problem with this situation is the lack of care regarding these values. Different distance measures in cosmology are differ for a very good reason. If we make a statement that "the distance of a far-away astronomical object is X", we always need to specify "what kind of distance" we're talking about. On Wikipedia see eg. elements of the list of the most distant astronomical objects. Almost every article there contains both the proper and the light-travel distance of the object or at least specifies explicitly, which one it uses.

If we're saying "how an astronomical object looked X years ago", then we're talking about it's "light-travel distance" or "lookback time" by definition. At least specify this in this article, when talking about the spatial and temporal distance of SMACS 0723 (which are equivalent only in case of the light-travel distance if we naturally set $c=1$). Masterdesky (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

To first order?

The article says "...the outer edge is a hexagon to first order" and the image caption similarly says "To first order, the Webb telescope's mirror outer rim is a hexagon..." what does this mean? Searching online I couldn't find any explanation for this phrase and the source at the end of the paragraph makes no mention of "first order." I did find references to "first-order" with a hyphen, but even that isn't very clear in what it's trying to say, if that is what the article is supposed to be saying. Is there a more clear way we can word this, or maybe provide context to what that means exactly? I've been reading through first-order and I can't even figure out which of those articles, if any, would apply (if indeed first-order is what was meant). This seems to be too technical a phrasing for this article, especially without any sources backing up the phrase that might provide some kind of context or explanation. - Aoidh (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

yeah i'm a little confused too, not to mention that it's its own section in the first place Ayyydoc (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it not apparent from the figure that the mirror's outer rim is not an exact hexagon? If you want to be hyper-technical about the shape then it's a 30 sided polygon. The thirty sides are arranged such that it is a perturbation of a hexagon.

Note that Wikipedia editors are supposed to use own words, and not the same words of the sources they rely on, so there is nothing wrong with not finding anything with the exact words "first-order" to describe the shape of the outer rim.

At the end of the day, if you don't like the wording "To first order, the Webb telescope's mirror outer rim is a hexagon..." you are are welcome to reword. --Banana Republic (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done if you're going to use such a technical term, link to it or source it, otherwise it's going to do nothing but confuse people. - Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess the whole issue went away with this edit as there really is no "outer rim" and "inner rim". There are 18 individual rims because the mirror is composed of 18 distinct submirrors. Banana Republic (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Other overly technical descriptions

There's a couple of places where I think it's too technically phrased. "Launched in December 2021, the spacecraft has been in a halo orbit around the second Sun–Earth Lagrange point (L₂), about 1.5 million kilometres (900,000 mi) from Earth, since January 2022. At L₂, the gravitational pulls of both the Sun and Earth keep the telescope's motion around the Sun synchronized with Earth's" is one of them. There are a lot of simple ways to explain astrodynamics, and that sentence is not it. I understand the general concept of "It's at a point between Earth and the Sun where the gravitational pull of each body is keeping it synchronized in orbit with the earth", but there are some concepts in there (second Sun-Earth Lagrange Point/L₂, and halo orbits) that require going to those articles to figure out what it's even talking about. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I reworded it to take out the word "synchronized". --Banana Republic (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Importance

My change to "High" for the article's importance was reverted here by Modest Genius as "per previous reasoning" and as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings. I don't see the discussion, so I'll note here that I referenced the guidelines before changing the importance to High. The guideline for High states: "High: Important or famous. Something an undergraduate astronomy student could have heard of or studied" (my emphasis). Since the guidelines say "or" versus "and", meeting either criterion is enough for High importance. But perhaps I'm missing something. Airborne84 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

i definitely agree that this article is of high importance. i also would want to have this article re-assessed for its quality. Ayyydoc (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

By 'previous reasoning' I meant the earlier edit summary. This is a single image of an individual object. Looking at the 'objects -> specific' section of astronomy ratings guideline shows even 'mid' importance objects require 'substantial scientific study, with numerous publications devoted to them'. It's possible that this deep field will result in numerous scientific papers in the next few years, but so far there are precisely zero. It's a press release image that has been reproduced in numerous popular media outlets, but no actual studies on this image have been published. It certainly doesn't reach the fame and detailed investigation of the various examples given as 'high' importance, both in that section and in the various other types of article. Cherry-picking three words from the general introduction doesn't overrule the specific guidelines for each type of article. I suspect this deep field will become more important in future (like the Hubble Deep Field), but right now it's just a press release. We don't even have an article on the Hubble first light image, or those from other space telescopes. Modest Genius ^talk 11:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Modest Genius thanks for your input. However, this is not an "object -> specific." Objects in that section include nebulas, galaxies, stars, and asteroids. This is a photograph as stated in the first sentence of the article. The image itself is the subject. There are some other images, such as Pillars of Creation or Hubble Ultra-Deep Field which are Mid-importance on the scale. I'd say this is more famous than those. Studies about the photographs or the telescopes are not really relevant. Whether the objects within the photograph have been studied might possibly come into play, but that is secondary since the subject of the article is the image itself, not the content of the image—thus how the image was taken, and famous people (like the U.S. president) who talked about it are relevant. And the introduction is certainly relevant, especially since there is no section for "image" or "photograph". Airborne84 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a deep field, i.e. the target of an observation. It is a specific astronomical object in exactly the same way as the Virgo Cluster is, or the COSMOS Field. Regardless, this is certainly not (yet) as famous as the Pillars of Creation (one of the most widely shared images in history), or the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (one of the most studied regions in astronomy, with hundreds of papers written about it). Maybe the JWST deep field will reach that level in the near future, but it hasn't yet. Modest Genius ^talk 11:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we're not reading the same articles. The Virgo Cluster is a "small cluster of galaxies", while this article is an "operational image". These are quotes from the first sentence of each article. And we will just have to disagree on the relative famousness; I am not aware of a US President rolling out the other two images. But since we appear to just be talking past each other on the former, I'll invite more comment with an RfC. Airborne84 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC about importance rating for Webb's First Deep Field article

Should this article's importance tag be higher than "low"? Airborne84 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. As the RfC lister, I feel that this article merits a "high" importance tag. (One other editor agrees.) As an image or photograph, it does not have a specific section in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings, where the general guideline for High states: "High: Important or famous. Something an undergraduate astronomy student could have heard of or studied" (my emphasis). Since the guidelines say "or" versus "and", meeting either criterion is enough for High importance. I do not feel the same as Modest Genius, that this image—which is similar to Pillars of Creation and the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (both photographs with Mid-importance ratings)—is governed by the "object -> specific" section of the Astronomy importance ratings. That section relates to astronomical objects such as nebulas, galaxies, stars, and asteroids, not images or photographs. While scientific studies are very related to astronomical object articles, it seems to me that how an image is taken, whether the image itself is novel, and how it was publicized is more relevant to the latter. Airborne84 (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:Modest Genius, User talk:Ayyydoc. Reason: Participated in earlier discussion. Airborne84 (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. I came here from the RfC notice, and I looked at the importance ratings for the project. It's probably "Mid", rather than "High", at least for now while this is still hot-off-the-press, but I think it's definitely higher than "Low". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, for the reasons mentioned by User:Airborne84. additionally the picture is of widespread interest within astronomy, and as time goes on, the body of academic work with respect to this photograph and adjacent findings will grow. nevertheless, the image itself is novel and monumental. i think it's worth putting in high. Ayyydoc (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles are assessed on the current level of importance, not the importance they might attain in future. Modest Genius ^talk 12:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

i mentioned that point to underscore the fact that it is currently a novel image of widespread interest within astronomy. Ayyydoc (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• No, for all the reasons listed in the 'importance' section above. This deep field currently meets only the requirements for 'low' in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Importance_ratings#Specific. In addition, the importance rating of a single article seems a trivial issue to start an RfC about. If you disagree with my assessment on the WP:AST scale (which you're entitled to do), it would have made much more sense to just ask at WT:AST for another project member to take a look, rather than starting an RfC. Modest Genius ^talk 12:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I came here to say basically this. Some banners also have a reassess parameter to ping the wikiproject, not sure if that's the case with this one. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - Mid, on the basis of both the general WP:AST importance scale Items that people in the know have heard about ... and also the miscellaneous category because the photo (not the objects in it) are considered one of the significant topics in popular astronomy. (emphasis added) I also agree with Modest Genius that we shouldn't evaluate any topic on its expected future importance. --N8_wilson 🔔 14:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - the importance assessment has nothing to do with how important a topic is (that's more vital article territory), but rather to assess how much attention needs to be paid to the article by that particular WikiProject. This is a rather semantic RfC. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  ah very good point Ayyydoc (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - I do agree that Mid seems to be the warranted importance based on its current status. If it keeps its current popularity and interest it may very well warrant becoming High status later, but Low seems unwarranted even at this point. If (as said above) it's a semantic RfC then the outcome shouldn't bother anyone, since the arguments for adjustment seem to be in line with the guidelines laid out by the WikiProject itself. - Aoidh (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• @Airborne84: Why on Earth has this gone all the way to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC? Discuss here by all means; but if you really need outside input, leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy inviting comments. By starting an RfC without informing the WikiProject, you're essentially saying that a WikiProject's importance rating is irrelevant to that WikiProject. This is a contradiction. I am minded to yank the {{rfc}} tag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Although I agree that the WikiProject should be informed, no editor and no WikiProject WP:OWNs any page. It's clear that there are disagreements locally among editors at this page, and so seeking input from the wider community is an appropriate action to have taken. And whatever consensus emerges had better be allowed to stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The "importance tag" referred to in the opening statement is, presumably, the |importance=Low parameter of the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} banner that was most recently amended with this edit. This sets up the text "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale." This is therefore the importance of the page to WikiProject Astronomy, nobody else. WikiProject banners are not a claim of WP:OWNership, but every WikiProject has the right to define what is and what isn't within their scope, and also has the right to set up an importance scale, which has been done. So why involve anybody else at all? If another WikiProject felt that the article was within their scope, they would have the right to add their own WikiProject banner; they would also have the right to set their own importance rating which would be entirely independent of the rating set by WP Astronomy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
      • The project has every right to define its own rating scale. When there is a lack of local consensus about how to apply that rating scale to a given page, it is reasonable to seek fresh eyes to give more input. WikiProject members have every right to explain to other editors how the rating scale works, in replying to comments in the RfC, especially if there are atypical features that would not be familiar to editors outside the project – and the RfC closer can evaluate how to weigh comments in that light. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
        • @Redrose64, you're not being very nice. You're assuming bad faith and making threats. If you're actually interested in my reasoning, try asking cordially. Until then, I'll simply remind you of Wikipedia's behavioral guideline on assuming good faith and Pillar 4, Civility. Thanks for your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as mentioned above. waddie96 ★ (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes as high or mid. I initially rated this article high when I created this talk page. High might be a bit of a stretch, but this should be at least mid. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes mid-importance, in my view. I do think this question is a bit of a bikeshed, though.... Ovinus (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. BooleanQuackery (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, per the criteria cited by Modest Genius. This simply has not made a significant change to the field, is not showing great changes or contention in progress, and seems only noteworthy as being the first of what hopefully will be many. If something vital is discovered in one of those, then *that* one will have a higher rating. The first one ... is only worth an article of low importance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't believe an RfC was an appropriate choice of dispute resolution. The discussion should have begun and ended on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject space. It's quite a minor disagreement that opening to general editors will skew the results towards one end, because they aren't space people per se. SWinxy (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

JWST JADES First Deep Field

This section (JWST JADES First Deep Field) seems irrelevant with the article and should rather be moved into the "List of Deep Fields". 142.167.176.34 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done - @Danbloch: (and others) - moved ""JWST JADES First Deep Field" section" to "List of deep fields" - per suggestion - seems ok - please comment if otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Magnitude?

For context, what is the Apparent Magnitude of the FAINTEST objects seen in this exposure, and how does that compare with Hubble? CFLeon (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverted recent edits of unsalvageably poor quality

I have reverted the article to its state on 6th July. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webb%27s_First_Deep_Field&diff=prev&oldid=1166008312. The text that was added after that was simply nonsensical. The person who added it has severe competence issues in both the English language and in physics. 37.47.140.243 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You're supposed to discuss first, get consensus, then remove if consensus agrees.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That's hardly obligatory; removing the content was the R in the BRD process. At any rate, the content in question is badly sourced (press-release-level) and off-topic, since it's not about the JWST Deep Field specifically. I tried to clean it up, but I honestly don't think it should stay. XOR'easter (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That issue is different from removing content apparently because the original editor is more fluent in Russian.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources are still good for what they stands for. They might be upgraded later. I would also agree to move subsection in question to the JWST article. This indeed a bit off topic cause the galaxies discovered weren't a part of the very first image. I just randomly dropped it over here cause the images were taken by deep-field technique. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources can't establish significance. XOR'easter (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There is more than enough coverage on that. It turns out the JWST already cited similar sources ont the same topic. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Extant citations to the churnalism factory that is phys.org and the standards-less, clickbaity space.com doesn't mean we should add more citations to them. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule that bans press-releases or "clickbaity" sources. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Press releases aren't independent, and sources are expected to have a reputation for quality. Even if there isn't an explicit policy against them, using these low-rent sources is a bad idea. XOR'easter (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've moved (on [Jul 19, 2023, 09:53]) the subsection to the JWST article. The same subject was already described with appropriate, fresh sources but in more sophisticated terms. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

On further reflection, I don't think it belongs there, either. Preprints and press-release-level coverage from phys.org and space.com do not substantial coverage make. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say remove for now by WP:PRIMARY, and re-add when confirmed by reliable secondary sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The two cited sources are actually secondary (phys.org, Space com): they cite link various studies. Though, they aren't scrutinizing the subject of the articles. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This story just takes dictation from one of the study authors. It's not a secondary source in any meaningful way. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, though I tend to agree with you, I think it's not the first time galaxies that were discovered in early epochs are discussed. E.g.: These are based on Hubble telescope discoveries. JWST's discoveries just confirms the same findings. There are better sources like this one, though they aren't scientific reviews of course: [2] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You're supposed to discuss first, get consensus, then remove if consensus agrees - total bullshit. What exactly makes you think this might be the case? You restored the text saying "looks coherent to me". What you added included such sentences as "It's was speculated that it's the most massive currently known black hole in the early universe ever formed". Either you didn't even look at the text or you don't have the competence to judge its coherence. So, did you actually read the text before putting it back? 37.47.140.243 (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I read enough to notice that you made the supposed poor quality out to be worse than it actually was.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

A curiously evasive answer. Perhaps you regret your actions but lack the maturity to admit that. Did you look at the text "It's was speculated that it's the most massive currently known black hole in the early universe ever formed" and think it looked coherent, or did you in fact have no idea whether it was coherent and you simply lied in your edit summary? And your claim about having to seek consensus to undo edits, that you must have known was absolute nonsense - are you going to explain why you said that? 37.47.100.59 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

19, 2023, 15:50 - «Undid revision 1166117143) - revert: this is very unbalanced coverage of a complicated topic; it needs primary sources, better wording "proved"??), and probably doesn't belong here.»

@Parejkoj: Primary sources? Please read the above discussion. Thanks.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

References