Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbig-Haro object

Herbig-Haro object[edit]

I've been working on this recently, with help from peer review. I think it's pretty comprehensive, I hope it's not bogged down with astro-cruft, and I seek your views on whether it is up to featured standards. Worldtraveller 11:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea those existed. I'll make sure to review this before the period ends. By the way, I did make a small stylistic change. I think you had two phrases mixed up in the lead. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, very intersting article. One minor things needs fixing- the numbers of the references and those in the text don't match- and they probably should.--nixie 08:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - I took off the reference numbering, it was not really needed, and added a couple of other cite points as well. Worldtraveller 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now. I fixed a few problems, but there's still things that could be improved. I've stricken my vote, until I've had the chance to check the improvements. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"However, T Tauri was found to be a very young and variable star, after which a class of similar objects are known as T Tauri stars." Things aren't known after something, they're named after or known as. Please fix the sentence to indicate your meaning.
Hopefully clarified now.
The words "collimated", "coalescing" and "accreting" needs a short explanation in the article. The last could probably be replaced with a more common word.
Have added explanations, hope they are clear.
You repeatedly mention this is common in young stars. How old can stars be and still be considered young?
Added ages in a few places to answer this question.
What is a binary system in regard to stars?
Added explanation
The last sentence appears to be an opinion. What is your source for it? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Source now cited. Thanks for your comments and editing! Worldtraveller 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My objections have been addressed. Great article! -Mgm|^(talk) 15:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I helped out in peer review so of course I'm going to support :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely done.Kevin M Marshall 22:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support (see below). The drawing should be a SVG not a png. Most of the uploaded nasa images are too small for good print use, we often get request for larger images. 1200px in one dimension would be good, if larger images are not available at the source site we should ask for some. Also, a media resizing bug is making the animated gif display full of snow. --Gmaxwell 22:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, but I'm not sure I see why the format of the drawing matters. Also, I'm sure I can find some bigger images but don't see any requirement for a certain image size in FAC criteria? Not sure what to do about the resize bug, any thought? Worldtraveller 22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it does not. The only thing concerning images that it is not an image overkill and that the image is free for us to use. But if the animation is causing problems, it could be removed. As for an image not being in svg, {{Sofixit}} yourself. Zach (Sound Off) 05:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of an objection that would fit with an FP nomination. Featured articles don't neccesarily need images, so asking for a certain quality for something that isn't mandatory to begin with, while actionable isn't something I think should be acted upon. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia frequently recieves requests for information about where to request higher resolution images by users with a neet to print our works, we simply are not doing a good job if we fail to make an effort to provide images with a resolution high enough for print. While it is true that we can feature an article without images, it is fairly rare, and I suggest that it's unlikely that we will feature any more without images or other illustrations except in cases where the subject is diffcult to describe visually. Simply put, a large number of our articles now have very high quality illustrations and therefor an article is not an example of our best work without them. In this case it is especially sad, because the bulk of the images do exist in a very high resolution form, but no one has made the effort to go find anything but little web resolution images... and because the animation which would otherwise be wonderful, now looks terrible, just because of a mediawiki bug. As for the so fix it, I went through peer review requests a few weeks ago and made SVGs for most of the articles that needed them. That I haven't had the time to do one more for this article does not decrease the point that the article isn't the best we have to offer without it. --Gmaxwell 15:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the mention the biggest point for making objecting over the lack of a SVG: The orignal author of such diagrams frequently made them in a vector drawing package whos native format can be converted directly into SVG with little effort. The alternative is for someone else to waste a half hour recreating the image... Which I've now done. The animation still looks terrible due to the mediawiki resizing bug, and most of the rest are still too small. I've demonstrated that I'm willing to address the issues I've raised, but is anyone else? --Gmaxwell 16:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. (after edit conflict). A very complete article. Hugely improved since the last time I looked at it in July. I don't consider the images to be such a big issue, specially if their source is clear; that would allow somebody to check there if necesary. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the diagram, I've now fixed the animation. (compare [1] and [2]). However, two of the three NASA photos do not provide any URL, and the one which is provided isn't to the ultimate source site. Perhaps I'm stupid, but googling just brings me to mirros of the article. The quality of HH32 is poor enough that it even looks somewhat bad on the screen. Since you seem to think it would be easy to get better images from the source, could you please give it a shot? Thanks. --Gmaxwell 16:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick:

HH32: here or here.
HH47.

And to boot:

HH30 - Top left.

To be honest, I was not hable to find a better picture of HH1/2 than the one we already have on the site. However, note that these images linked above are pretty much from the source. It can't really get much better without having to process them yourself from raw data, IMO. Cheers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks! I uploaded highres versions where they were available, and combined multiple versions of HH47 to fill in the corners. I guess they are about as good as they are going to get for now. --Gmaxwell 05:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]