![]() | Orion Nebula has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Priority 1 (top)
|
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
The "Structure" section gives this number, which would make the nebula large compared to Orion itself. Perhaps 10 minutes is intended? —Preceding unsigned comment
Apparently the actual invisible halo around the core nebula is really big JdelaF ( talk) 06:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps include a photograph highlighting this Nebula being viewed from earth? Eddie mars ( talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not an astronomer by any means, but I think I would perhaps take issue with the sentence in the second paragraph which reads "There are also supersonic "bullets" of gas piercing through the dense hydrogen clouds of the Orion Nebula". Does the concept of 'supersonic' really have any meaning at interstellar densities (a few million particles per cubic metre at best)? Perhaps 'fast-moving' with an estimate of the relative velocity might be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.162.102 ( talk) 10:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I found corroboration at the Gemini Observatory site on this page: http://www.gemini.edu/node/226 (great image!). Might it be worth including a reference to that page in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.162.102 ( talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The article talks about the nebula being some 1270 lightyears away from us. Yet, the bullets section says that "They (the bullets) were probably formed one thousand years ago from an unknown violent event." If this were the case, we wouldn't see the bullets for another 200 or so years. I know it's relative, but techinically speaking, it should really take the 1270 light years into account, and thus "They were probably formed around 2000 years ago..." -- 86.162.179.186 ( talk) 11:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Doing...This review is part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007. --
ErgoSum•
talk•
trib
22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The first issue I see is the introduction is too short ( MOS:INTRO#Length). Although it might not be a big enough issue to disqualify it for GA status. Reference link #10 is dead, there is an archive version available, but it simply links to an abstract. I assume this article was in the print version of Sky and Telescope? If so, a link is not absolutely required, although an ISBN or some other identifier should prove useful. These are just superficial issues I see so far, I haven't given the article a full read yet. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
It would be good if we get at least one ground-based view of the nebula, and one picture of the location of the nebula inside the constellation. Mighty useful for us amateur stargazers. Lynch 7 14:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The naked-eye image of Orion helps but the caption information "lower middle" is, well, nebulous. Only if you already know where it is, you can see it in this photo - but it would be much better to add an arrow pointing to the right location. Paulhummerman ( talk) 01:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe the 10,000 x 10,000 pixels & 18,000 × 18,000 pixels images are broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.188.176 ( talk) 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
A colleague produced the new sentence
and justified it with
Actually, that's more seriously incorrect: "quite" means to a great extent, but something is either possible or not, and "quite impossible" is similar to "highly unique"; both are examples of a rhetorical device -- i'd call it "absurd hyperbole" -- that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia.
Now, i hesitate to endorse "all but impossible". (...partly bcz i've got an eerie sense of having at least come close to making some kind of very similar objection on WP in the last year ... maybe even re this line!) But that replacement is the less correct of the two terms, since "all but ..." can mean "every item [of the kind implicitly specified] except ..."; at worst "all but X" is, in this case, something of a metaphor (applied to the continuum between "inevitable" and "impossible") for "too close to impossible for specifying the difference to be worth the effort it would take". Or "inexpressibly close to impossible".
For the moment, i'm reverting. I think the sentence is crap for other reasons, and i think it's more to the point to work out a solution to the other shortcomings (which probably involve more of the 'graph), than the terminological vagueness the colleague was trying to remedy. And the solution for the problematic sentence may, when the graph is shaped up, fall out when shaken gently.
--
Jerzy•
t
05:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It is visible to the naked eye. It was 'discovered' by early humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 ( talk) 11:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orion Nebula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orion Nebula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ngcic.org/steinicke/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It's rather disconcerting that every image in the article is completely different, though they all show the same thing. It might be helpful to the baffled naive reader (what does it really look like?) to point out that each image differs in field of view, orientation, wavelength etc. Paulhummerman ( talk) 01:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe all that’s needed is to rotate the images so that they overlay better? JdelaF ( talk) 06:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
How can the Messier's drawing be a part from his memoir from 1771 when the date of the drawing is 24th March 1774 ("24 Mars 1774" is written in French on the upper right corne of the drawing). Agerskov ( talk) 23:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I added info re M43 to this pg. I somewhat regret this as overly “bold” on my part, but maybe this will provoke someone more knowledgeable to clarify what imho seems somewhat confusing. JdelaF ( talk) 06:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I seem to recall in my youth (Sixties) that there were opinions that this was the result of a supernova. Is that correct? If so, then these disproven theories should get a small mention. 50.111.39.61 ( talk) 00:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)