marcus said:
wolram you or Nereid correct me if I am wrong but isn't this a case where
one might expect the result to be confirmed by space telescopes?
also by other ground-based ones
I haven't been following this and I am wondering if there has been any
confirmation
There's some healthy competition among observational astronomers, with the big facilities (HSTI, VLT, Keck, Gemini, ...) ever keen to proclaim new results. Even more breathless are the PR and marketing folk.
Ahead of the spending of large sums of $, € (and some other currencies) on designing and building the forefront facilities, clear sets of scientific objectives are sought, and widely published; one of wolfram's links is to just such a list. Once the facilities pass their commissioning tests, scientific observations get under way. With the exception of 'director's discretionary allocation' and some time for TOO (targets of opportunity), time is allocated by a committee, which choses from (a usually large) set of proposals (I'm summarising; many details omitted, caveats apply). Time on telescopes, and with instruments (cameras, spectrometers, etc), is usually vastly oversubscribed - astronomers making proposals want far more time on the big beasties than is available. Proposals are usually called for in phases - committing the facility for ~12-18 months; in many cases the proposals (or at least summaries) are publicly available, as are the allocations (in general, not by a specific night).
So, high-z objects have been the object (

) of many, many proposals for time on the HST, VLT, Gemini, ... As the proposals are often justified (scientifically) in terms of testing current theory, it's no surprise that the HST, VLT, etc have been used to search for high-z (proto-)galaxies, nor is it any surprise how the astronomers would test whether an object found in a set of CCD images has a z of (x).
Surveys etc. Crudely, astronomers do surveys or study specific objects. The former is some kind of general look at a lot of sky (or a selection of bits of sky), more or less to 'see what's there'. In the early days of a new window - e.g. the near and far IR, >100 MeV gamma - most work goes into surveys of one kind or the other (e.g. IRAS, Compton). Sometimes new technology permits a new survey of an otherwise well-studied window (e.g. SDSS).
From what's found in a survey, detailed work can be done on specific objects, or classes of objects. For this work, the big beasties - HST, VLT, Keck, Gemini, etc - are used.
Confirmation of just what the object Pelló et al. studied is may come from a dedicated HST observation (maybe), ditto for Keck (maybe), or the JWST (certainly). However, in terms of bang for the precious time on a telescope euro/buck, I'd guess finding and studying more objects, behind other Abell clusters, would be a better way to go. If for no other reason than to get some handle on how (a)typical this object actually is
