| Revision as of 09:42, 15 September 2006 editEveryking (talk | contribs)155,603 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:27, 23 November 2006 edit undo81.178.88.15 (talk) imagesNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| 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. ] 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | 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. ] 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. | |||
| Please note , in which Worldtraveller removes detail, as he is inclined to do simply as a matter of philosophy (read his user page). I propose that if the detail is referenced it should be restored. ] 09:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:27, 23 November 2006
Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5
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.