This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
After finding the Kewley reference (which called this an HII galaxy), I found several other references explaining that this galaxy may contain both a Seyfert nucleus and a starburst. I will attempt to write a more sophisticated discussion later. Dr. Submillimeter21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my reference to the Seyfert status of the galaxy in your efforts to remove the remainder of my dull comments. For people unfamiliar with the subject matter a brief explanation of the picture was thought to be helpful (boring as it may have been). If the Seyfert status is wrong, I could care less, but it was sourced from this article Photo Release - heic0706: Hubble’s view of barred spiral galaxy NGC 1672: "NGC 1672 is a member of the family of Seyfert galaxies, named after the astronomer, Carl Keenan Seyfert, who studied a family of galaxies with active nuclei extensively in the 1940s. The energy output of these nuclei can sometimes outshine their host galaxies. The active galaxy family include the exotically named quasars and blazars. Although each type has distinctive characteristics, they are thought to be all driven by the same engine – supermassive black holes – but are viewed from different angles."
[1]User:Sweetmoose6
You did not insert the reference correctly, which is why I treated it as an unreferenced statement. Note that a refereed journal article is much more reliable than a Hubble press release. Also, the description that you gave left out the most interesting part (that the galaxy contains a supermassive black hole) while adding some confusing statements (such as referring to Seyfert galaxies as a galaxy group).
The introductory comments were seriously about very mundane stuff in terms of spiral galaxies. Virtually any optical picture of a spiral galaxy will show that its spiral arms contain star formation regions. A comment on the photoionized gas probably belongs in the image caption, but a lengthy discussion on the image does not necessarily need to be added to the text. Dr. Submillimeter21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and I understand your point. I did leave the reference off which was a mistake. And I agree with putting a limited amount in a caption. My only position for including the information was to help someone who saw the picture understand what they were seeing. And, in almost every subject I've ever studied, most of the basic information was mundane but required to understand what was interesting.
As for the Hubble press release, I understand it is not on par with a journal, but my question is whether the information was correct or whether there is some debate about it which I was not aware of. If there is a debate that would be interesting to include. If the press release is wrong it might also be something worth pointing out. I will, of course, wait to read what you write as per your above AGN comment. User:Sweetmoose6
One version of the Hubble press release actually discusses the composite nuclear starburst/AGN, but it does not state this in a very straightforward way, nor does it explain why this is interesting. I'll see what I can find on this galaxy today, and I will add the information to the article.
Also, I would not trust the distance measurement given in this or most other Hubble press releases. These distance estimates are usually estimates based on the galaxies' redshifts and not true distance measurements. Dr. Submillimeter08:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
