- 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 PrimalMustelid talk 14:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
COSMOS field
The COSMOS field, taken by the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope
- ... that the COSMOS field (pictured) is the largest contiguous survey of the universe ever taken by the Hubble Space Telescope? Source: https://esahubble.org/images/heic0701g/
- ALT1: ... that the COSMOS field (pictured) was the result of a collaboration between over 70 astronomers worldwide? Source: https://esahubble.org/images/heic0701g/
- ALT2: ... that the COSMOS field (pictured) image contains over 2 million galaxies? Source: https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2007/01/2025-Image.html
- Reviewed:
- Comment: I've changed the sources and hooks around a bit due to some miswording on my part.
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page. ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC).
- Comment: I'm not sure if this is the right way to add a comment, but the information given above is largely incorrect. The COSMOS field is not one of the deepest images ever taken of the universe and it is definitely not the deepest Hubble image ever taken either. It is also not really accurate to say that it's one of the largest surveys of the universe ever. The esahubble.org page cited as the source doesn't make these claims either. It is one of the largest (maybe the largest?) contiguous fields ever mapped with Hubble, but that is different from the statements made here. Aldebarium (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I mixed up the sources. [[1]https://esahubble.org/images/heic0701g/#:~:text=COSMOS%20%2D%20the%20Cosmic%20Evolution%20Survey,international%20team%20of%2070%20astronomers.%7Cthis]] source is the right one for the "Biggest survey" claim (which isn't a claim, it's a fact stated by Hubble/ESO) and is one of the largest surveys of the universe ever conducted (stated by HubbleSite among others, if you want links use my talk page, as I'm not too good with links). The 2 million+ galaxies statement has been said by multiple credible sources, including Caltech. ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still, most of the items listed above are incorrect. It is definitely not correct to state that this is one of the deepest images ever taken (either by Hubble, or more generally). There are many Hubble images that go deeper than this one. It is the largest contiguous survey field ever observed by Hubble, but that’s different from stating that it was one of the largest surveys of the universe ever. Partly this depends on what you mean by “largest”: if referring to angular area covered, other surveys like SDSS are vastly larger. Aldebarium (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Relooking at some if the sources, you are actually right, it is the largest contiguous survey, however, so I'll just reword the Hooks ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. But again, it’s important to clarify this was the largest contiguous area observed *by Hubble* for a distant galaxy survey. It is not even close to being one of the largest contiguous survey fields ever: many other surveys (such as SDSS) have covered vastly larger survey areas. The area of the COSMOS field is 2 square degrees, while the original SDSS covered something like 10,000 square degrees. Aldebarium (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the help. Everything should be good now. Again, thanks! :) ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. But again, it’s important to clarify this was the largest contiguous area observed *by Hubble* for a distant galaxy survey. It is not even close to being one of the largest contiguous survey fields ever: many other surveys (such as SDSS) have covered vastly larger survey areas. The area of the COSMOS field is 2 square degrees, while the original SDSS covered something like 10,000 square degrees. Aldebarium (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Relooking at some if the sources, you are actually right, it is the largest contiguous survey, however, so I'll just reword the Hooks ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still, most of the items listed above are incorrect. It is definitely not correct to state that this is one of the deepest images ever taken (either by Hubble, or more generally). There are many Hubble images that go deeper than this one. It is the largest contiguous survey field ever observed by Hubble, but that’s different from stating that it was one of the largest surveys of the universe ever. Partly this depends on what you mean by “largest”: if referring to angular area covered, other surveys like SDSS are vastly larger. Aldebarium (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Thank you for this fascinating article. It has two issues, plus I think we still need final confirmation that the hooks are all true:
Two of the article's paragraphs contain no citations. They should at least have one citation at the end of each.This bit is copyright violation (plagiarism). You need to either rephrase it completely and cite it, or put it unchanged in quotation marks and cite it: Is the Hubble Space Telescope's largest ever contiguous survey of the Universe and was carried out by an international team of 70 astronomers on July 1, 2013. In making the COSMOS survey, Hubble photographed 575 adjacent and slightly overlapping views of the universe using its Advanced Camera for Surveys' (ACS) Wide Field Camera. It took nearly 1,000 hours of observations. The distances to the galaxies were determined from their redshifts, using ESO's Very Large Telescope, the Subaru and CFHT telescopes in Hawaii and the MagellanPlease do the same with this one: covers a 2 square degree equatorial field, with spectroscopy and X-ray to radio imaging. Over 2 million galaxies are detected, spanning 75% of the age of the Universe.- Aldebarium
Please would you kindly confirm that the above hooks are now all true?
When the above issues are resolved, This nomination could be passed.
- Positive notes
- I have copyedited the article, but that does not affect DYK.
- According to DYK check, the article was created on 25 March. According to the article history, it was nominated n the same day (so no problem with timing).
- Normally, an image like the one above would fail DYK assessment, because a glance at the thumbnail version says that it is just a black square. However in this case, I believe the public will understand that you have to click on it because it is obviously a night sky with stars in it. Storye book (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- All issues have been fixed as of now. MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The listed information appears correct now, except for the final point about “identified galaxies". I don’t think that the statement “over 200,000 identified galaxies” is really meaningful. What does it mean for a galaxy to be “identified”? This isn’t specified. The online catalogs contain measured photometry (magnitudes) and other information for a larger number than this, and according to the COSMOS web page at Caltech the data provide morphological information for over 2 million galaxies. The number of 200,000 seems to be taken from the COSMOS field article, and the citation for this fact in that article links to a paper by Darvish et al., but I’m not sure where exactly in that article the number 200,000 appears (if at all). In the paper (section 2) they say that their analysis used a sample of about 40,000 galaxies with accurate photometric redshifts, which is a small fraction of the total galaxy count in COSMOS. In any case, I don’t think that the concept of “identified galaxies” is really useful or meaningful unless a more specific definition is given and citation is found to back up this number. If that line is removed, the remaining information all looks ok. Aldebarium (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'll just remove ALT3, you are probably right MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The listed information appears correct now, except for the final point about “identified galaxies". I don’t think that the statement “over 200,000 identified galaxies” is really meaningful. What does it mean for a galaxy to be “identified”? This isn’t specified. The online catalogs contain measured photometry (magnitudes) and other information for a larger number than this, and according to the COSMOS web page at Caltech the data provide morphological information for over 2 million galaxies. The number of 200,000 seems to be taken from the COSMOS field article, and the citation for this fact in that article links to a paper by Darvish et al., but I’m not sure where exactly in that article the number 200,000 appears (if at all). In the paper (section 2) they say that their analysis used a sample of about 40,000 galaxies with accurate photometric redshifts, which is a small fraction of the total galaxy count in COSMOS. In any case, I don’t think that the concept of “identified galaxies” is really useful or meaningful unless a more specific definition is given and citation is found to back up this number. If that line is removed, the remaining information all looks ok. Aldebarium (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aldebarium and MemeGod27. I understand that the hooks are now acceptable, but I see that the article still has the contested phrase “over 200,000 identified galaxies” as a caption to the picture. Please could we have that removed, so that I can give the green tick? Thanks. Storye book (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done, I just replaced it with "thousands of galaxies". Thanks :P MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, MemeGod27 for those corrections. However, now that those issues have gone, some other problems have become more visible:
- * The paragraph beginning, "The area, corresponding" has no citation at the end. Please either provide a citation, or remove the uncited sentence.
- * Earwig now finds two sections which must be rephrased to avoid copyvio: "Hubble Space Telescope has a narrow field of view, which is only a fraction of the angular diameter of the Moon.", and "covers two square degrees of sky. By comparison, the Earth's Moon is one-half degree across. The field is being imaged by most major space-based and ground-based telescopes".
- * Note that the technique of copying and pasting material into an article, then trying to rephrase it in situ, just doesn't work. You always end up with sections of it which are unchanged. The best way is to read the source, then put it out of sight, and write the information in your own words into the article. If you tell yourself that you can write it more clearly and concisely, that usually works. Only proper names (words beginning with capitals) and short, common phrases, can be safely transferred into the article. If you really cannot rephrase a section, put it in quotation marks, with the citation at the end. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done , I reworded the FOV part but just phrased the second one you pointed out, as there is no way I can reword it but keep the same integrity (and the source is cited and mentioned). I also added the citation that you mentioned. Thanks Storye book! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, MemeGod27 for rephrasing the first citation mentioned above. You had not dealt with the missing citation at the end of the para mentioned above, so I removed the uncited bit to the talk page. It can stay safely there until you can find a citation. Re the second citation: if you don't put it in quotation marks, it is still copyright violation even if you have added a citation. You still need to add quotation marks, because the phrasing itself is copyrighted. I have added the quotation marks for you, because we cannot just leave copyvio in the article. The article is now cleaned up, and can go forward.
Good to go, with ALT 0, 1 or 2, and the picture. Note to promoter: I believe that the readers will understand that a sky-at-night picture will look black as a thumbnail, but will be well worth clicking on, to see the stars. However, that is ultimately a matter for the promoter to decide.Storye book (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just one more comment- after reading through the COSMOS field article, I have to say that it is very poorly written, unclear and confusing in many aspects of its content, and contains some errors (such as the implication that the entire field was imaged in 1 day, which I will fix now). It would benefit from a complete rewrite. (not that I have time to do this, but the article is really not in good condition at present.) Aldebarium (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- . Thank you, Aldebarium. I have changed the green ticks to a "no", for the present.
- Note to admin: Please give this nomination a set period of time for the article to have a full rewrite, before closing it down, in the hope that someone might re-write the article. Can you give it a month? Storye book (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm working on it right now. :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, MemeGod27. Please let us know when you have finished the re-write? Storye book (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, got it. MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, MemeGod27
@Aldebarium: Please would you kindly look at the article and let us know if it is ready for DYK reassessment? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
New reviewer needed unless @Aldebarium: returns. Z1720 (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes- much better now, this is a huge improvement over the earlier version! I just made one small change to the lead. Aldebarium (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Aldebarium.
Good to go, with ALT 0, 1 or 2, and image. Storye book (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)