Wikipedia:Peer review/Redshift/archive1

Redshift[edit]

After some rumblings from the non-standard cosmology crowd, I think we've finally begun the process to conform this article to Featured Article status. I've incorporated most of the information from the Italian featured article and think the page is fairly exhaustive. I'd love some feedback on how to make it more readable, more informative, etc. Let me know what you think.

--ScienceApologist 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, the stub section on redshift surveys will need some work. The "main article" redshift survey is not much better, a single paragraph, and arguably could be copied wholesale here. The "neutrality" message is also a bit troublesome. It is not very good style to have maths equations in the lead section if it can be avoided. And some of the "see also" links (e.g. Fingers of God) could be explained in the text here. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers of God are explained in the text above. The neutrality message will be removed as soon as there is consensus on the talkpage, which I'm hoping is very soon. The modifications we're talking about now are slight. --ScienceApologist 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not "exhaustive", it is exclusive, assuming that Doppler, Cosmological and gravitational redshift are the only kind of redshift. I have provided over 500 peer-reviewed references to articles that use the term redshift in a slightly different manner to that defined. Since the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View page requires articles to be "representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias", the page as it stands does not meet basic Wikipedia standards. --Iantresman 11:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that many of the references are to articles which simply named effects and the word redshift. Those are not viable references as a significant portion of them could be coincidences. (Just because "Compton effect" and "redshift" appear in the same article doesn't mean the article is describing a redshift due to the Compton effect). --ScienceApologist 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a statement to the effect that Doppler, Cosmological, and gravitation effects are the three known causes of red shift would address this concern. It is always possible that there are other physical effects that science has not yet discovered. — RJH 16:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the section on "Movement of the source" be a little clearer on how it gets from the mathematical definitions (which are based on the wavelength λ) to the asymptotic expansion (which are based on relative movement v). (Yes I know this is sort-of covered by the doppler effect page.) I'd also like to see the complete series expansion formula, rather than the first few terms. Thanks. — RJH 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been adjusted slightly. Does this help or does more change need to be done? --ScienceApologist 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks. — RJH 15:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments. I'm going to try to request an FA status. --ScienceApologist 02:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]