Talk:NGC 7424

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:NGC 7424/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Wronkiew (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Prose

• "The '(rs)' indicates the presence of an central ring-like structure, and the 'cd' indicates a relatively low core brightness relative to the arms." This should be "a central".
• "SN 2001ig was a rare Type IIb supernova discovered by Australian amateur Robert Evans on the outer edge of NGC 7424 on 10 Dec 2001." Spell out month names.
• "This amount is larger than currently understood stellar processes (including supernovae) but smaller than the amount of X-rays emitted by active galactic nuclei, which accounts for their alternate name, Intermediate-luminosity X-ray Objects (IXOs)." It is unclear what this alternate name applies to.
• "Grand design" is not adequately explained.
• NGC 7424 is not a "face on galaxy", it only appears that way to us, and that is how we describe its appearance. This should be clarified.

Response> Points 1, 2, 4 and 5 have been fixed. In point 3, I think the reference is reasonably clear given the context. If others feel it is unclear then I'd be happy to change it. Vegasbri (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

MoS

• The lead section needs some work. Review WP:LEAD, integrate the information currently in the lead with the rest of the article, and write a new one based on the guidelines. It should mention the supernova and the X-ray sources. It should not try to explain galaxy classifications, move this to a new section called "Classification" or "Characteristics".
• Avoid using adverbs that editorialize, like "remarkably".
• "NGC 7424 is listed as a member of the IC 1459 Grus Group of galaxies, but is suspected of being a 'field galaxy';" Who suspects this?
• Subsections of "Notable features" should use standard subsection headings. Better yet, just split it up into two sections, one for the supernova, and one for the X-ray sources.
• Only the first word in "Notable Features" should be capitalized.
• Avoid linking the article subject in the first sentence.

Response> Points 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have been fixed. In point 3 the citation made it clear who suspects this, but I changed "notes" to "last note" to make it even clearer. Vegasbri (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research

• The Spaceflight Now article says that NGC 7424 is a similar size to the Milky Way. The lead paragraph says that the size of NGC 7424 makes it similar to our galaxy, which is subtly different. The infobox says that its "Notable feature" is that it is very similar to our galaxy, which is not supported by any of the cited references.

Response> changed everything to simply "similar." Vegasbri (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations

• "Further observation will be needed to settle the matter." This needs a reference.
• "Astronomers are actively working on models that would explain these observations." This needs a reference.
• "It is a good example of a 'grand design' galaxy, and is classified as 'SAB(rs)cd,' meaning that it is intermediate between normal spirals (SA) and strongly barred galaxies (SB)." This sentence is too similar to the wording of the cited source. Either quote it directly or rewrite it in your own words.
• "SN 2001ig was a rare Type IIb supernova discovered by Australian amateur Robert Evans on the outer edge of NGC 7424 on 10 Dec 2001." This needs a reference.

Now added. Scog (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Response> Points 1 and 2 are fixed (I simply removed those sentences). Point 3: I reworded the sentence but retained the word "intermediate" as I know of no exact synonym. I also explained what "grand design" meant. Scog was kind enough to fix point 4. Vegasbri (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus

• The "Image" section does not belong, as the article is about the galaxy, not the image. Put a basic description of the image in the image caption, and move the more detailed explanation to the image description page.

Response> Noted and fixed. Vegasbri (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Image licenses

• I could find no indication of a Creative Commons 3.0 license on the ESO website

Response> On the image page I gave a reference to the webpage where ESO gives permission to use the images (provided the source is acknowledged) but I am not sure what Wiki license classification this corresponds to. Any help would be appreciated. Vegasbri (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the license information. Wronkiew (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Image captions

• Copyright information should be moved to the image description page.

Response> Done. Vegasbri (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the citations. I'm putting this article on hold for improvements. Wronkiew (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Response> Thanks re: the citations. I put some effort into them. Vegasbri (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the above issues have been addressed, so I'm declining to promote the article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)