Talk:Pea galaxy

Pea galaxy received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

This is an interesting new article but requires a lot of cleanup, mostly style and layout-related issues. Please see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Peas_.28Astronomy.29. Also suggest moving to Pea galaxy. Opinions, please? Kosebamse (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Thanks for adding the article. Please see also comments at

Other editors might be more willing to refer to this article if the flags were removed. Catch-22. Richard Nowell (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it reads the citation style is unclear, what does that mean? There are no notes or footnotes and only two external links. The citations are placed after the full stop at the end of the sentence, as per the Style Manual. These are all done this way.

Can you give some examples of where the tone is not appropriate for Wikipedia? Thanks Richard Nowell (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are new results on these fascinating galaxies in a paper by Amorin et al which is available here. I think I have enough of a conflict of interest that I shouldn't edit the article, but can help with questions if required. Chrislintott (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but couldn't get edit summary to work for me. I added some refs. Richard Nowell (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two pages on Peas. Can we stick to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_galaxy rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Pea_galaxy? It would be better if the last one 'Green_Pea_galaxy' was removed to avoid confusion. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean.

books} 02:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

After consultation with one of the moderators, it was decided that the numerous internal links from scientists to their universities, institutes etc. was confusing and unnecessary. The papers that are cited give the place where the studies were made, so that should be enough. Otherwise, inconsistencies have appeared, where some are referenced but others are not. Besides, it seems less bias-forming e.g. which is better? Yale or Oxford etc. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph of the "Description" section star formation rate of pea galaxies is indicated to be 13 million M☉/yr . In the second paragraph it is 13 M☉/yr (which I believe to be the correct value). Probably just a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:62:4D01:DE01:8CB1:7A59:C35E:F285 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for pointing this out. I have changed these values on the page to reflect more current thinking on the star formation rate of the Milky Way, which is ~2 solar masses a year. The commonly quoted rate of ~10 solar masses a year for the Peas is a figure that is generally used in more recent scientific papers. Having taken this into account, the actual rate of gas conversion in the Peas is ~875 times more efficient than the Milky Way. Richard Nowell (talk)15:59 March sixth 2014.

I have now changed the mass estimates of the Milky Way for a recent (yet still conservative) value as found in the Wikipedia Milky Way article. So after re-doing the maths to be more precise, the actual rate of gas conversion in the Peas is ~1,950 times more efficient than the Milky Way. Richard Nowell (talk) 13:05 March eleventh 2014.

The article seems to have a lot of Wiki internal links in it. It might well be a good thing to take some away, as the links can detract from the actual article. Richard Nowell (talk) 14:21 March eleventh 2014.

Did you already clean this up or something? It seems roughly appropriately wikified. The only thing that seems weird to wikilink is

play on words, but it's not taking much away. If anything, it seems like the later sections may need to be more wikified.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes I've removed quite a few internal links. Did we really need a link for 'software'? Or 'stars'? I'll endeavour to link more later on in the article, but it was over-wikified IMHO, possibly by me when the article was first started. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:23 March twelfth 2014

I hope that this article makes more sense now than it did at the beginning of March. It had not had the attention needed and parts of it were neglected. Indeed, it suffered from 'article sprawl' I think from when it was first started. Abbreviations and internal links are still not 100% consistent. Abbreviations! Richard Nowell (talk) 13:55 March twelfth 2014.

Changed order a lot which groups papers more successfully. Getting there! Richard Nowell 22/03/14

Hi! As ever it is a delight to read and browse interesting articles, thanks to prior authors and contributors. In the theme of spring cleaning, I did wonder if this article's structure could be improved by changing how the many sections which summarize academic papers are handled? More than most technical articles I've seen, this entry seems to have a lot of sections structured as "In (year), a paper was published...," then providing a somewhat deep dive summarizing the article. Would a different structure work better now that there's rather a lot of content here, perhaps comparing or cross-referencing between published research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:500:F1C1:80FA:EA42:C4AE:90FD (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]