Template:Did you know nominations/SDSS J0849+1114
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by DimensionalFusion talk 08:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
SDSS J0849+1114
- ... that SDSS J084905.51+111447.2 are a trio of galaxies in the constellation of Cancer, in which three supermassive black holes are colliding together?
- Reviewed:
TarnishedPathtalk 12:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC).
- Not a full review, but is the information we have on the galaxy not outdated by over a billion years? Bremps... 01:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a new article, with no copyvio problems. Referencing is appropriate. QPQ is not required. It is of appropriate length, is interesting and certainly merits a DYK. I have one issue, which is that both the hook and the opening lede of the article are quite technical, rather than accessible. In the opening of the article, it mentions 'AGN'; this might be better written out in full, as it is a niche abbreviation. In the next paragraph, for example, what is a Seyfert nucleus? Also shouldn't reference 4 also be linked in the top paragraph (this is the paper, on which the press release is based?)
- Can I suggest a very light copy-edit to the article to make it more accessible?
Second point, on the hook. How about a small tweak for readability:
- ALT1 ... that there is a trio of galaxies in the constellation of Cancer where three supermassive black holes are colliding?
Chaiten1 (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaiten1 I've edited to write out active galactic nucleus (AGN) in full and used reference four in the opening paragraph as per your suggestions. I'm not sure about rewording "Seyfert nucleus" though without adding quite a bit of unnecessary content. If people read the type 2 Seyferts link I think they should get the idea. As per your alternate hook, I kinda like my one a bit more because it starts of a bit mysterious but I'm open to yours. Please let me know if you think rewording "Seyfert nucleus" is absolutely necessary. TarnishedPathtalk 09:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath Thank you for the prompt edits; very happy with these and, as you say, you already link to type 2 Seyferts so nothing else is needed there. For the hook - I guess it comes down to preference. Without wanting to hold things up can we see if another editor has a prreference? Perhaps Bremps, as they already engaged with the article? Chaiten1 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’m no astronomer, so take this with a grain of salt. But if we estimate the black holes to collide within 10,000 years or so based on information that took light speed to reach us, would the black holes not have already collided a billion years ago? If so, I think the hook might need to be altered for accuracy. The article says the galaxies are a billion light years away. Bremps... 17:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bremps, part of the problem with rewording to take into account the distance is that a light-year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time. So saying that they collided approximately 1.06 billion light years ago would be a technically incorrect usage of terms. However it could be potentially reworded like:
- ALT2 ... that light travelled 1.06 billion light-years from SDSS J084905.51+111447.2, a trio of galaxies in the constellation of Cancer, where three supermassive black holes were colliding together?
- or
- ALT3 ... that light travelled 1.06 billion light-years from a trio of galaxies, in the constellation of Cancer, where three supermassive black holes were colliding?
- The hooks are slightly more clunky but I think they address your comment. What do you think?
- @Chaiten1 thoughts? TarnishedPathtalk 05:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your continued work on this! I think the billon year part makes the hook more intriguing; the 'were colliding' is a nice touch. My preferences is for ALT3. Happy to sign this off for the next step.Chaiten1 (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- ALT3 it is then. TarnishedPathtalk 08:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bremps, part of the problem with rewording to take into account the distance is that a light-year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time. So saying that they collided approximately 1.06 billion light years ago would be a technically incorrect usage of terms. However it could be potentially reworded like:
- I’m no astronomer, so take this with a grain of salt. But if we estimate the black holes to collide within 10,000 years or so based on information that took light speed to reach us, would the black holes not have already collided a billion years ago? If so, I think the hook might need to be altered for accuracy. The article says the galaxies are a billion light years away. Bremps... 17:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath Thank you for the prompt edits; very happy with these and, as you say, you already link to type 2 Seyferts so nothing else is needed there. For the hook - I guess it comes down to preference. Without wanting to hold things up can we see if another editor has a prreference? Perhaps Bremps, as they already engaged with the article? Chaiten1 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
New article, well sourced and referenced. Interesting hook. QPQ done. Chaiten1 (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)