> Is that level of snark necessary or helpful to anyone? I think a far more valuable and helpful response would be to point out why these are not globular clust

> Is that level of snark necessary or helpful to anyone? I think a far more valuable and helpful response would be to point out why these are not globular clusters. Either you don't know (why reply at all?), or you deliberately chose to withhold that (again: why reply at all?). I agree with you, that the explanation why that can't be globular clusters would be much more helpful, but if one wants to get it, they'd better do not say things like "globular clusters are not even mentioned in that article, which is weird." People see such statements and answer to them. When you're asking a question you need to be focused on your question, a little slip can lead to results exactly as we see. If I was asking that question, I would mention my disappointment with the lack of mention of globular clusters, but I wouldn't call the article weird because of this, I'd rather mention my limited knowledge of astronomy and my curiosity and my hunger for knowledge, and I make it clear that these are the reasons of my disappointment, not the bad work of the authors of the article.