Talk:Dwingeloo 1

Comments

Not to denigrate Hurricane Devon's work, and it is nice to see my image, but what is the justification for the statement that Dw1 is "much bigger then our "Sister Galaxy," Andromeda."? IIRC, our Nature paper concluded that it was of the order of a half or a quarter of the mass of the Milky Way, and the HI column density from the Westerbork observations pictured at Dwingeloo 2 suggested that that estimate was not far off.

The second image is also misleading: the zone of avoidance is not caused principally by the bulge of the Milky Way, but rather by its disk. In any event, I doubt that Dw1 will be that spectacular: it is not that large (the Maffei galaxies and IC342 are almost certainly larger) or close (they are all around 3 Mpc, and Andromeda is much closer, less than 1 Mpc). -- ALoan (Talk) 00:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Dwingeloo was smaller then the Milky Way. I fixed the problem. I also moved my segment on "How Dwingeloo will be better seen in th future" and moved it to the Maffei Group Artical. — Hurricane Devon (Talk) 17:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

In the future, when making statements on the physical characteristics of any astrophysical system, please make sure that (at the time you write the article/s) you use the most up to date information you can find and don't quote from earlier references when the latest articles have better data. Use those earlier articles to show the progression in knowledge but don't quote from then in lieu of better data from later articles in your possession. These wiki articles should reflect the latest in the scientific data that's been collected, if they're to be reliable and valuable resources. Not a rehash of old data with some new stuff thrown in for good measure. Other than that, it was fairly well written :)Ozmeister66 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)