this image smacks of original research. just look at the history of it. the author is making it up as they go along. 217.44.143.145 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know; does "running a photo of a galaxy through the 'explode' filter repeatedly" count as research, original or otherwise? I think perhaps "artist's impression" is the best description; "tongue-in-cheek artist's impression" is probably more accurate but assumes more than we know about the motives of the artist. -- Perey (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
