This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
It would be the earliest observed, not necessarily the oldest. 02:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the previous entries for EGS-zs8-1. Frankly, I don't think this article should be the target of such statements; it's meant to cover galaxies in general terms, not specific record holders.
Praemonitus (
talk)
16:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We've Just Seen The First Galaxies in The Universe Being Born
I reverted a change that included a link to a May 2024 newspaper article entitled "We've Just Seen The First Galaxies in The Universe Being Born". This content is summary of a news article about primary publication. It's not encyclopedic. The only information in the content is the date really.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
After learning more I think there is an additional issue to keep in mind: I think the term "first galaxies" is not correct really, it's more like observations of the earliest phases of galaxy life. There are no "second, third, ... galaxies", only galaxies whose distance from us means we see them later in life.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
19:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Sgubaldo In my opinion, the first two paragraphs of the section "Early galaxy formation" is news, not encyclopedia content. The section should summarize reliable reviews on "Early galaxy formation" not naturally unreliable news stories from last month. We just discussed this issue above in the topic "We've Just Seen the First Galaxies..."
Johnjbarton (
talk)
14:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
User:Johnjbarton This is the state it was in when I first came across it, I just updated it. I'm happy for it to be changed to more of an overview of the top-down/bottom-up processes talked about in the last two paragraphs.
Sgubaldo (
talk)
14:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok thanks. I started looking into the refs and mostly they are good. I'll resummarize them to focus on the science and challenges rather than dates.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
15:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually the third paragraph is out of date as well. In the 20+ years since the 1999 reference the galaxy formation theory and observation has changed.
I now think that "Early galaxy formation" is over emphasized. The "Formation" section needs to be expanded. As far as I can tell on the theory side, "early galaxies" are special primarily because they are "early", not because their "formation" is unique.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
00:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok I have completed my rewrite. I replaced the news content with summaries from two recent reviews. I tried to keep it shallow consistent with this being a summary of Galaxy formation and evolution (which also needs work to be sure). Please review.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
17:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Had a look; I'm happy with the changes. Thanks again. My only concern is whether we need the 'early galaxy formation' subtitle? We could probably just leave it all under 'formation' (or viceversa)? Also, courtesy ping to @
Praemonitus and @
Parejkoj who might want to take a look as well based on their discussion in April detailed above.
Sgubaldo (
talk)
00:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Early galaxy" formation is treated special, but as far as I can tell this means the same as "galaxy formation" except in the case of mergers. I removed the section heading as you suggested.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
19:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply