Talk:GRB 970228

GRB 970228 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 25, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 19, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
July 2, 2010	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 28, 2011, and February 28, 2017.

Current status: Featured article

Archives

GA review #1[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:GRB 970228/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I read through the article and made a couple edits, but otherwise found no major issues. It seems like a complete and understandable account of this event, so I'm passing its GA nomination. Congratulations! Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FA review #1[edit]

This article has been nominated for Featured Article status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GRB 970228/archive1.

70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redshift but not distance in intro?[edit]

Is it appropriate for a Featured Article in astronomy to have a redshift but not a distance in the introduction? I recommend replacing the redshift with the corresponding distance from the infobox, both in the intro and on the Main Page where this is currently Today's FA. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Why was the endeavor controversial?[edit]

"In what is heralded as one of the most controversial scientific endeavors ever ..." - why was the endeavor controversial? The full sentence seems to suggest that the observation itself was controversial. If there were competing theories regarding power laws or jets, and this observation wasn't conclusive, then I could understand there might have been controversy. Could somebody that knows the background reword this passage, or just remove the text I've quoted?--ML5 (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the primary author for this article, and I have no idea where that phrase came from—or what it refers to. It certainly wasn't there when the article was brought through FAC. I've removed it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]