Talk:HE0435-1223

Did you know nomination

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Bsoyka talk 14:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

HE0435-1223 (center), as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope

... that the quasar HE0435-1223 (pictured) is a rare "Einstein Cross"?

Source: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2002/43/aah3814/aah3814.html

ALT1: ... that HE0435-1223 (pictured) is a quadruple-lensed quasar? Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207062 (same as above, just under a different website (ArXiv))
Reviewed:

Created by Sir MemeGod (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - See below.
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - See below.
Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article created on 22 July, and meets the length requirement. There are serious sourcing issues, see below. There are no obvious neutrality issues. Earwig gives me an error message unless I turn off the search engine, in which case it does not reveal any overt copyvio; I have not spotted any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing. Of the proposed hooks, I find ALT0 much more interesting than ALT1 (most readers will probably not know what either "Einstein Cross" or "quadruple-lensed quasar" means, but I think they'll be much more likely to want to find out about the former, especially when described as "rare"), but it is not properly cited in the article as required by WP:DYKHFC. The image meets the requirements. This is the nominator's fourth DYK nomination (after Template:Did you know nominations/G299.2-2.9, Template:Did you know nominations/COSMOS field, and Template:Did you know nominations/Skyrocket Galaxy), so they are QPQ exempt. On account of this all being rather technical, I'll never be able to entirely rule out having missed some disqualifying issue with the content and would eventually just have too WP:Assume good faith. With that said, some comments about the content:

I don't see how citing Stellarium for the position in the night sky is appropriate.
I don't see how citing an online conversion calculator from redshift to light-years is appropriate.
Michael Foley is a disambiguation page.
HE0435-1223 is a quadruple-lensed quasar and rare Einstein Cross located in the constellation Eridanus – we need a source that states that (1) HE0435-1223 is a quasar, (2) that it is quadruple-lensed, (3) that it is an Einstein Cross, (4) that Einstein crosses are rare, and (5) that it is located in Eridanus. We lack all of this here.
at a distance of approximately 2.33 billion light years away from Earth – even if the conversion from redshift to light-years were appropriate, and I don't think it is, the redshift is unsourced.
HE 0435-1223 was discovered in October 2008 by astronomer Michael Foley during a study and search for gravitational quadruple lenses in deep sky objects. – I'll admit to not reading the entire cited source, but I did read the abstract and conclusion, and conduct a search for "0435" and "Foley", and this does not seem to be verified by the cited source. The only hits for "0435" were in Table 2 on page 730, a list of quadruple gravitational lenses were the arrival time ordering is not known—but the objects themselves are, and explicitly taken from the CASTLeS data set. The only hit for "Foley" was in the list of authors, and that's Patrick Foley, not Michael. The article itself is as far as I can tell about the method used, not findings derived from it. Unless I have completely misunderstood what's going on here, this seems to be a rather egregious misuse of the source.
The main physical characteristic of HE0435-1223 is the fact that it is divided into four frames by the galaxy WSB2002 0435-1223 G. – maybe, but the (intended) cited source is just a database entry for the galaxy.
Even just reading the abstract at https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207062 (as a sidenote, why is that linked instead of the full article at https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0207062?) reveals that Wisotzki et al. reported the discovery of HE0435-1223 in 2002, making the statement in the lead about Foley discovering it in 2008 obviously wrong.
Recently, a research team studied HE0435-1223 with the Hubble Space Telescope, they observed that the brightness of the four images varies in a particular way, if image A varies, image B will vary with a delay compared to image A. – MOS:RECENT. This paragraph is also unsourced, see WP:DYKCITE.
Why are there duplicate citations to Kochanek et al.? I see that they differ slightly.
According to scientists, the object producing the lensing may not be a galaxy but a possible unorganized galactic structure which would produce several gravitational lenses that distort HE0435-1223, and this would explain the delay between the magnitudes of each image. – it is very unclear to me what "a possible unorganized galactic structure" means and how it differs from a galaxy, and consequently this is very difficult to attempt to verify from the cited source, which is not helped by the extensive page range of 47–61. What specific passage in the source does this correspond to?
Citation number 8 ("Radware Bot Manager Captcha") is malformed and unusable. I gather it is intended to be the same source as is used at fr:HE 0435-1223, namely https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/132?
Data from the variation of emission fluxes indicate that the central black hole of HE0435-1223 would have a mass of approximately ~10 billion solar masses. – assuming that https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/132 is indeed the intended source, I see that 1.2+3.1
−0.8×10⁸ M_☉ (i.e. 120 million solar masses, though with substantial uncertainty) is the estimated mass for the WFI2033-4723 supermassive black hole, but I don't find the estimate for the HE0435-1223 one?

Given the seriousness of the issues I have discovered (and the substantial risk of additional false negatives where I am uncertain whether something is verified by the cited source or not owing to the article and sources being quite technical), I would suggest this nomination be withdrawn. Ping nominator Sir MemeGod. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]