A copy of the paper for anyone who can't read the journal site: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.06048.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.06048.pdf On reading it, one th

A copy of the paper for anyone who can't read the journal site: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.06048.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.06048.pdf On reading it, one thing I'm a little stylistically critical of (and this is minor): They go through all the principles, methodology, findings -- distances, dimensions, (0.1 pc at 4 pc distance), velocity, properties, etc. etc. of this thing. But I guess in keeping with the tradition of hiding the headline worthy thing that the BBC would want to write about, not once did they just outright clearly say "we believe this is a filament of dark gas in our own galaxy causing this"! The terms "galaxy" and "interstellar" appear about 4 times total, and only incidentally to describe the history or context. They never simply clarify in plain language that: -- This is a piece of gas inside our galaxy (versus outside) -- It's big, and long, floating around between us and other stuff Maybe writing for an academic audience, you assume everyone understands the obvious and need to make it sound very detailed, but they could sure have done a better job of making it not just sound like a technical addendum paper. Maybe after months of staring at the details, they got the enthusiasm for making a clear simple statement beaten out of them! But there are good examples of paper writing in astronomy that read simply and clearly. Not everything has to sound technical and swamped by the details to be credible. I might've called it "First detection of a dark matter filamentary cloud in our Galaxy through pulsar scintillation" or something like that.