Revision as of 17:17, 11 January 2007 editRJHall (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers90,673 editsm WP:AO not WP:A← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:55, 15 January 2007 edit undoWilliamKF (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,422 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Mainpage date|June 15|2005}} | {{Mainpage date|June 15|2005}} | ||
{{v0.5|class=FA|category=Natsci}} | {{v0.5|class=FA|category=Natsci}} | ||
{{WPAstronomy|object=yes|class=FA}} | |||
{{FAOL|Chinese|zh:貓眼星雲|lang2=Spanish|link2=es:Nebulosa Ojo de gato}} | {{FAOL|Chinese|zh:貓眼星雲|lang2=Spanish|link2=es:Nebulosa Ojo de gato}} | ||
Revision as of 20:55, 15 January 2007
Skip to table of contents |
Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5
Astronomy: Astronomical objects FA‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Ambiguous sentence
From the article:
- The image reveals two 'caps' of less ionised material at the edge of the nebula
Should it be read as that the material in these regions are less ionised compared to other regions; or that the concentration of ionised particles is lower, or something else?
If it is singly ionized nitrogen; does it have to be mentioned at all? In such case it is already mentioned in the text that green represents singly ionized nitrogen. Gunnar Larsson 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Images
Why have they suddenly all disappeared? Several beautiful NASA public domain images have been deleted for no apparent reason.
- The question has been here for a month, and no explanation offered.... were they just deleted for fun, then? 81.179.65.38 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)