Wikipedia:Peer review/Pea galaxy/archive1

Pea galaxy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm finished with all the text and pictures, so I'd like now to clear up punctuation, spelling etc and find out whether it's the required tone. I think it's a great article about something that is new to Science and has very little written about it. All the pictures ave permission (apart from one which is in the process. I'm happy with it, pretty much. Thanks, Richard Nowell (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is very interesting, and it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it, but it needs some more work to follow the Manual of style for Wikipedia. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• There are multiple cleanup banners at the top of the article that need to be addressed. Normally the cleanup banners would disqualify the article for peer review.
• The lead is too short for the length of the article - per WP:LEAD the lead can be up to four paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
• Since it is a summary, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• The first sentence of the lead has some issues: Pea galaxies, also referred to as Green Peas, are a rare type of low-mass, compact galaxy which is undergoing high rates of star formation. First off, since the name of the article is "Pea galaxy", should it start "Pea galaxy..." or should the article be moved to Pea galaxies? There is also a subject verb agreement problem here. Pea galaxies (subject) is plural, but "is undergoing" is singular. This could be fixed with something like Pea galaxies, also referred to as Green Peas, are a rare type of low-mass, compact galaxy which undergo high rates of star formation.
• Figures / images in Wikipedia are not usually numbered.
• I think it might be useful to start with the History of discovery section as it provides context for the reader.

OK, calling it a night - more in the next 24 hours or less Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. Most of the points that you think might be addressed have been changed.

1) The History of Discovery was at the beginning, but then got moved to the end. 2) I agree with your remarks about the start. However this has been changed from what I originally wrote. 3) Style I will try to make more Wiki-orientated. 4) There are references and citations for every major, amd minor, point that needs it. Unless I am informed what exactly they want more referencing from, I am in the dark.

Thankyou for your review. I'm glad to say that all the pictures have permission and licenses granted, so that is one hurdle out of the way. There seems to be no-one to converse with.

And I agree with your grammar point. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. You wrote Most of the points that you think might be addressed have been changed. But when I look at the article, the grammar problem in the first lead sentence has not been changed, the lead is still way too short, the history section has not been moved, and the figures are still numbered. What has been changed? If you are waiting for someone else to make the changes, please see WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More from Ruhrfisch

• Finishing my comments here. I have reread the article and think there are three major issues. The first is organization (already started addressing that above), the second is references (style used and relaibility of sources per WP:RS), and the third are some general Manual of Style issues.

Organization

• If the article had a complete lead section, then it would serve as a general introduction. I already mentioned above that I think it would make more sense to start with the history of the discovery. In fact I think I owuld start with a paragraph on the whole SDSS and Galaxy Zoo project, then go on to the discovery of the Green Peas themselves. I think the history section could end with the papers in scientific journals and then the rest ofthe article could be on the technical aspects.
• This quotation Dr. Kevin Schawinski, post-doctoral researcher at Yale University and co-founder of Galaxy Zoo, [noted? observed? said?] "This is a genuine citizen science project...It's a great example of how a new way of doing Science produced a result that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.".[2] needs a verb and could go into the Galaxy Zoo paragraph in the intro.
• I also note that the Schawinski and Cardamone quotes say much the same thing and both of them are probably not needed. In general there seems to be an over-relaince on extended direct quotations in the article - several of them could be paraphrased or partly paraphrased with smaller portions of the quote used. Quotations are copyrighted and so fall under WP:NFCC, especially 3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
• The article needs to be better about giving years - in the History section it would be useful to note when the SDSS and Galaxy Zoo started, when the first green pea was noted, etc.
• Another issue with organization is needless repetition. For example the abbreviation E.L.G's is given twice but only needs to be stated once after the first usage. Or spot the repetition here The Milky Way is an average [1][2][citation needed] spiral galaxy and has a solar mass of 5.8 × 1011. One solar mass (sol.mas.) is how much mass our Sun has and the Milky Way has around 580,000 million sol.mas.. ;-)
• Wikipedia's style convention is to not use periods after most abbreviations, so I think it should be "ELG" or "ELGs". The article on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey uses SDSS, as does the official SDSS web page and the Galaxy Zoo forum, so change the examples that use S.D.S.S.

References

• There are two major issues with references in the article: style (how the refs are done) and reliability (whether or not some of the sources used are considered reliable and thus OK to use on Wikipedia). Just like any science journal, Wikipedia has its own house style and articles and their references are supposed to follow it.
• Currently the article uses a mix of reference styles. Some are inline refs using the <ref>Insert non-formatted text here</ref> tags, while others are just external links. The external links should be converted into actual references - see WP:CITE.
• I see the article already uses {{cite web}} in places and that and things like {{cite journal}} could be used throughout. Please note that there should be as much information as possible given - so current ref three lacks a publisher (physorg.com) and ref 1 needs to somehow indicate there are more than just three authors (et al. works or listing them all) and needs an access date. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Several of the links are to blogs and forums associated with Galaxy Zoo. I doubt these are considered reliable sources under WP:RS. For example, what makes this a reliable source? See WP:RS
• I would ask on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy talk page about relaibility of the sources, or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
• References usually go directly after punctuation, without a space.
• I also notice the article has some trouble with logical quotation - basically unless an entire sentence is being quoted, the period goes outside the quote marks.

Style issues

• A model article is useufl for ideas and examples to follow. There are many Astronomy Featured articles at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Physics_and_astronomy that may be useful models. Galaxy itself is also a FA.
• The tone of the article is uneven - places are written very simplistically (explictly dividing by 4) where other places are at a very technical level. The article also uses you or your and we or our - generally Wikipedia is written in the third person.
• Problem sentence An average starburst Pea has a redshift of z=0.258, a mass of around 3,160 million solar masses, a star formation rate of 13 solar masses a year and an OIII Equivalent Width of 694å Starburst is a disambiguation (dab) link and needs to be fixed - the tool box in the upper right corner finds 5 more of these. ALso, I think the last symbol should Å (angstrom).
• I have run out of time - this should be enough to get started on some major cleanup work. I enjoyed the article and learned a lot about something I knew very little about - thanks and hope this helps.

If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

>>>>Thanks for your comments. I haven't read them all yet, but I appreciate your effort. Unfortunately, I cannot use the History of Discovery section as almost all of it were referenced from the GZ forum or blog. These are unreliable sources as they can be changed easily. You can read the argument through the link below, although I am a bit strained. If people know that bit of the article is from those sources...Anyway, not for me to tell Wiki what to do and how to do it! Regards, Rick. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Pea_Galaxy_Flags

Later... Have changed some things as per your recommendations. As the History of Discovery has been jettisoned due to it being dependent on unreliable sources, some of what you have written sadly becomes extraneous. Have put in verbs where you wrote they should be. All but four external links now remain in the article. Kevin and Carolin are friends and have given me permission to use quotes from a press release. Trying to address repetition. Have tried to take out 'we' and put in the third person. Not sure what to do with the introduction to be honest... Richard Nowell (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will make some more comments in a few days. Here are a few things that struck me on a quick look just now.
• The article still needs to have the lead expanded. Please read WP:LEAD for information on this. My rule of them is include every section in the article in the lead somehow.
• Quote marks should be " (double quotes) not ' (single quotes)
• Do not have external links in the article - convert these to references please.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)