Talk:Astronomy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natalie.Lynne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion - Article for deletion on Modern Mars habitability

There is an article at AfD that may interest you. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues with sources and overall eval

There seem to be sources that take me to an organization's website, but not necessarily any information pertaining to the main topic of the page itself.

    example:  http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/[permanent dead link] Official Web Site of the Sydney Observatory

It would also be beneficial, I think, to include as much of the earliest instruments that were used in astronomy by early astronomers like Copernicus, Aristotle, etc.

Overall, the article is relatively neutral and does explain the basic idea of astronomy. 107.77.199.213 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.199.213 (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Stagnant in medieval Europe? Not really

The article, as it is, offers absolutely zero space to any of the astronomical progress in medieval Europe on the basis that it was "stagnant", in other words, implying there was none. But this is an old view and modern historians are certainly aware of progress in astronomy in Europe during the Middle Ages, if not major. The page fails to name a number of medieval European astronomers who made contributions to the study of astronomy, including William of Hirsau, Georg von Peuerbach, or even Richard of Wallingford who, among many things, invented the first astronomical clock.64.231.43.14 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The statement that you removed: "During the Middle Ages, astronomy was mostly stagnant in medieval Europe, at least until the 13th century" does really contradict what you added - all these astronomers lived in the 13-th century or later. So, I reinstated it. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Distance to a star

Someone (@Interstellarity:) asked if this article was ready for a FAR. That inspired me to look at the article, which I had not looked at before. I'd like to discuss one sentence:

The distance to a star was announced in 1838 when the parallax of 61 Cygni was measured by Friedrich Bessel.

The first obvious question is why would someone include a statement that someone measured the distance to a star. This happens all the time, so mentioning this example would be encyclopedic if it were notable in some way - the first, or especially significant for some reason.

I looked at 61 Cygni and it does state:

In 1838, Friedrich Bessel measured its distance from Earth at about 10.4 light-years, very close to the actual value of about 11.4 light-years; this was the first distance estimate for any star other than the Sun, and first star to have its stellar parallax measured.

That makes it worthy of mention, but that article doesn't have a source. (There are cites at the end of the paragraph, but they support other facts.)

The Astronomy article does have a source: Forbes, 1909, pp. 147–50

However, that source states:

But Bessel’s observations, between 1837 and 1840, of 61 Cygni, a star with the large proper motion of over 5”, established its annual parallax to be 0".3483; and this was confirmed by Peters, who found the value 0".349.

So while the 61 Cygni has a date of 1838, that date is not supported in that article, and the source in the astronomy article gives a range, not a specific year. I won't be surprised if 1838 is the right date, but a proper source is needed.

The 61 Cygni article claims it was the first distance estimate (other than the sun), which justifies the inclusion of the statement, but again, that article is unsourced. The source in the astronomy article says:

The first successes, afterwards confirmed, were by Bessel and Henderson. Both used stars whose proper motion had been found to be large, as this argued proximity. Henderson, at the Cape of Good Hope, observed a Centauri, whose annual proper motion he found to amount to 3".6, in 1832-3; ...

That means Bessel wasn't the first, although he was one of the first. Henderson's calculation in 1832–33 predate Bessel's. Perhaps there's a reason to mention Bessel while not mentioning Henderson, but we need some rationale.

The Wikipedia article on Henderson is Thomas Henderson (astronomer). It states that he was:

...the first to determine the parallax of a fixed star,...

That article suggests he did the calculations before Bessel, but did not publish until after Bessel, (in 1839) which may be why some credit Bessel as the first.

This source: A letter from Professor Bessel to Sir J. Herschel may help nail down the date, but 1838 is clearly the date of the letter. The source talks about his work in 1834, and 1837, but just when he starts talking about the final steps, the excerpt ends, so we need someone with access to the full article to see whether he completed the task in 1837, or 1838, or whether convention suggests that the discovery date is the date of publication.

It might be that Bessel deserves the credit for first publication, but, even if so, the sentence in this article refers to the "first star to have its stellar parallax measured" which isn't literally true.

I don't doubt that there is a relatively easy fix, but I do suggest that the current statement may be literally wrong, and if not wrong, is not supported by the citations provided, plus needs some motivation for inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In 1995 the solr and hemispheric observatory (soho) 24.112.118.245 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 1 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sugar Tian (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sugar Tian (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Astronomy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, pretty good but there's uncited statements and problems here being

• Theoretical Astronomy is a mess of section with possible uncited statements in there.
• Topics also studied by theoretical astrophysicists include Solar System formation and evolution; stellar dynamics and evolution; galaxy formation and evolution; magnetohydrodynamics; large-scale structure of matter in the universe; origin of cosmic rays; general relativity and physical cosmology, including string cosmology and astroparticle physics. (Not so sure about this one)
• The discipline is an overlap of astronomy and chemistry. The word "astrochemistry" may be applied to both the Solar System and the interstellar medium. The study of the abundance of elements and isotope ratios in Solar System objects, such as meteorites, is also called cosmochemistry, while the study of interstellar atoms and molecules and their interaction with radiation is sometimes called molecular astrophysics. The formation, atomic and chemical composition, evolution and fate of molecular gas clouds is of special interest, because it is from these clouds that solar systems form. Studies in this field contribute to the understanding of the formation of the Solar System, Earth's origin and geology, abiogenesis, and the origin of climate and oceans.
• The entire Interdisciplinary studies section.

and that seems to be it. There may be more problems but I haven't identified them yet. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Noting that the review was opened properly on March 14th, to avoid overloading editors, rather than on February 15th, as indicated by the signature date. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks now like everything still tagged as uncited is big-picture stuff about the nature of the scientific process and things like that. If it can't be sourced, it can probably be cut or rewritten into something that can be. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

XOR'easter, looks like a few {{cn}} tags are still remaining, but that's about it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The question now arises of whether we should just cut the still-uncited text; it's rather vague. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

These edits address the remaining {{citation needed}} tags in a way that I'm happy with. XOR'easter (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.