Talk:Galactic tide

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 27, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Too confusing. The lead does not provide an adequate introduction of the topic; many details go unexplained.

2. Factually accurate?: Good.

3. Broad in coverage?: Could be longer; more information is needed on the topic, such as how a galactic tide originates and the history of its discovery.

4. Neutral point of view?: Good.

5. Article stability? Good.

6. Images?: Good.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

This article states "This causes the Earth to slightly flatten out as, on one side, its water is moved outward toward the Moon while on the opposite side, where the Moon's gravity is weakest, rotational force pulls water away from it, creating two "bulges"."

The article on Tidal Forces states "Tidal acceleration does not require rotation or orbiting bodies; e.g. the body may be freefalling in a straight line under the influence of a gravitational field while still being influenced by (changing) tidal acceleration"

and gives the subtraction of forces on the whole object from unequal forces on the circumference of an object as the reason for the pattern of tidal forces (and therefore "bulges")

I think the whole discussion of how Earth's tides work is misplaced here, and particularly so in the introduction. It's also an invitation to various incomplete or inaccurate attempts at description like the one mentioned above. If someone is interested in galactic tides, they're unlikely to appreciate a long waffling-on about Earth-Moon tides right at the start. I have streamlined the introduction to this effect. Deuar 11:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the criteria listed for this article's failed GA nom, it's main (indeed only) issue was that it didn't explain enough to the lay reader. That expanded intro is an attempt to address that issue. Serendi^podous 11:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Drat. So much for an easy fix. Still, I think this stuff does not belong in the intro, maybe in a first section. What do you think? Deuar 13:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure to be honest. My knowledge of tidal forces is fairly minimal, and I've been looking for information on it that I can understand. Problem is a lot of it seems contradictory. Serendi^podous 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, all the tidal stuff is easily and copiously mixed up. Deuar 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

some people claim that dark matter is stellar tides working together

Some people claim that dark matter is stellar tides working together (here we speak about one galaxy), but it's 100% nonsense because we know from the bullet cluster that dark matter has inertia and at few cases may be separated for few million years from the galaxies. Even bullshit opinions should be mentioned but we must reveal that most don't agree for some reasons. Bullshit is the fertilizer of tomorrow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:C400:1C37:1DD6:ABD3:AF6F (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)