|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Radio galaxy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Radio galaxy has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects / Cosmology||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
The article Radio galaxy should be made into a separate article from Active galaxy. Radio Galaxies are a sub-category of Active Galaxies, as are quasars, blazars, and BL Lac objects. Basically, "Radio Galaxy" and "Active Galaxy" are not interchangeable terms.
- This is now done. I can see a couple of things wrong with it as it stands, but I'll let the world loose on it and see what happens Mhardcastle 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph is so full of technobabble that even as a physician, my brain hurts reading it and it actively drives me away from even skimming the rest. Needs to be rewritten at a more appropriate level for lay users, despite the technical nature, as specified by Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, but you raise an important issue. This is a very good helpful advanced article and it should not be butchered. Many articles should have two versions, an advanced version and a simpler explanatory version for the large majority of the public. What if you as a physician were writing or reading an article on DNA? What type of article would you want? Both types have great value. Detailed articles or advanced articles could also have a simpler explanatory introduction section. On this particular subject there is a lot of complicated data to analyze, what is going on is still not well understood, and an honest expert writer could well feel uncomfortable writing a simple explanatory summary at this time.