# Talk:William Herschel Telescope

Under the history section the very last sentence in the last paragrpah. Quote "The total cost of the telescope, including the dome and the full initial suite of instruments, was £15M (in 1984, equivalent to £36M today"  
It says the value in Today's dollars.  However It does not define "today" I write this because I assume this article will be up for years to come and today's dollars will change with inflation on a daily bases.  I suggest changing today to the actual date or approx date that the £36M is suppose to reflect.--RichardFry (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement actually uses a clever template so it will update the "today" value as new inflation figures are released.  David Underdown (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok thank you.--RichardFry (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It does indeed update itself, but if someone printed the page or used it for some other purpose, it could get dated. I've therefore changed the statement to include the year, and BOTH the amount and the year will update automatically (assuming the {{inflation}} template updates at least once per year). Modest Genius talk 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Herschel Telescope/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
The opening is rather short at two small paragraphs.
Put footnotes after punctuation, not before. (As in after periods (.) and semi-colons (;) not before.)  I've done some, but many remain later in the article.
The Science Highlights section reads like a list of trivia, which is to be avoided on wikipedia.  Instead, try and incorporate these facts into the narrative of the article, rather than having a laundry list.
Reviewer: WilliamKF (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and for adding alt text to the images. My response to your points:
I've expanded the lead somewhat; let me know if I should add more.
Looks good to me, thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:REFPUNCT states 'Some editors prefer the in-house style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it.', so it seems either style is acceptable. Anyway, WP:GACR states that this is an aspect of the MOS which is not required for GAs.
Sorry about that, thought it was supposed to just be one way, I guess I find the current way glarring on the eye, and now I've made it worse, but only changing it half-way. WilliamKF (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
By its very nature a section on 'science highlights' will have to list those highlights. These are separate, unrelated pieces of research, so it's inevitable that a list will result. I could turn that into a paragraph of text, but it would simply be a list in another (imo less clear) form. Do you have any suggestions for how else this section could be handled?
Try to pull out items and embed them into the paragraphs that proceed as part of the narrative. Perhaps the history section is a good place for the two in the first section, and the recent ones might remain a list at the end of the history on current activities? WilliamKF (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Modest Genius talk 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I reccomend putting the in-line citations at the end of each paragraph, rather than dotting the paragraph, throughout. It is only an optional suggetstion, as it may not have any bearing being rated GA (I am new to this process). It would make the paragraphs easier to read. IMHO. Other than that, I don't see a problem with this article. After moving the in-line citations, I  reccomend Good Article status for this article. This is because, except for the introduction, which had problems with grammar (which I corrected), the rest of the article is clearly written, has good prose, and has correct spelling and grammar. It obviously has in-line citations, with reliable sources, so "check" on that one. This article broadly covers the  topic, is consistent with the topic and it has a neutral point of view. Moreover, the images  are very helpful for illustrating this article. This GA is GTG (good to go) Steve Quinn (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, it seems various friendly passers-by have moved all the ref tags outside the punctuation. I'm not so attached to inside the punctuation (although it's the way I usually work) to bother moving them all back, so that's sorted. I wrote some more text on the science and incorporated the two historical examples into that, since they seem out of place in the history section (which is about the planning and construction, and doesn't mention science). The 'recent highlights' list is still there, because I spent about an hour trying to work out how to turn it into prose without success.
Re Steve Quinn's suggestion about moving the references to the end of each paragraph - I think that's a very bad idea. It might look nicer, but it's far better to have each factual statement and the reference that supports it clearly and unambiguously associated with each other. In most cases references are at the end of each sentence, but in a few cases (those in which the reference only supports part of the sentence) I've put them in the middle.
Other than the recent highlights list, is there anything else that needs doing? Modest Genius talk 22:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no personal objection to GA status being given, however, I have not carefully reviewed the GA requirements, nor done a thorough review of the article.  I consider my comments more casual, after a light review, to help move the GA forward, and suggest further independent detailed review to supplement what has been provided already.  I do feel the article has moved forward positively and again apologize for messing up the ref tags position relative to punctuation, which I see as evidence of my knowledge being insufficient to suffice approval.  Thanks for trying to avoid the list of recent highlights, and I agree it probably is not easily avoided, so should suffice for now.  I agree with keeping the refs as they are, at the point they apply, for easier confirmation of facts and knowing what is and is not cited. WilliamKF (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Righto, that's fair enough, thanks for taking the time to look at it. Could you add a 'second opinion' line for the article on WP:GAN (code is at the top of that page)? At the moment anyone coming here will see that you started the review and move on. Modest Genius talk 19:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2nd opinion requested.  WilliamKF (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look over this article tonight or tomorrow. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are the issues I found:

The citation needed tag needs to be addressed.
A couple places have refs before punctuation; they should be after like in the rest of the article.
There are multiple bare URLs that need titles, publishers, etc. added.
"was £15M (in 1984, equivalent to £36M in 2010[8]) - within budget once inflation is taken into account." Not sure what the stray dash is for.
I would prefer that part of the research section be converted into prose, rather than bullet points.
As a whole, someone who's not an expert on the subject may have a difficult time reading the article, given all the terminology involved. For GA it's okay, but I wouldn't see an FA going anywhere. This is really just a problem in the design section, and I'm not sure of an easy way to handle that given that the terminology is naturally complex.
I'll put the GA on hold for one week; I'll pass it when everything's addressed, and fail it if it's not. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at =this over the weekend. A couple of those issues have crept in since I nominated (ref punct, which was the other way around before the first GA review...), and should be easy to fix. However, if you have any idea how to turn the research bullet points into prose, I'm all ears. I spent ages trying to work out how to do it! You're right on the terminology, though I tried to link everything to relevant explanatory articles. Still, telescope design is hardly an everyday activity. Modest Genius talk 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Re your points:
Update 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC): 3 references added, including two new ones.
I've moved all of them I could find, if there are any more please let me know. Note that the GA criteria do NOT require adherence to WP:REFPUNCT.
Update 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC): all done. Again, the criteria do NOT require these to be filled out (though I've done it anyway)
This seems like a perfectly good use of a dash to me. Nevertheless, I've replaced it with a semicolon.
See above; I'm not sure this can be addressed without completely removing the material. Seems to me that a list is the only possibility here.
I've introduced more links into the Design section
Modest Genius talk 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. The bullet points, since there's no easy way to convert them, I'll let stay as is. Once the citation needed tag is addressed I'll pass it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
References added in place of the {{cn}}. Modest Genius talk 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Everything checks oout now, so the article passes as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! Modest Genius talk 12:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been unable to find a suitable reliable source for this, so I'm moving it here until one turns up. I know it's true (unless multiple people at the ING and other ORM telescopes have been lying to me), but can't find anything that explicitly states it. There are a few sources which state that other telescopes are using the WHT plant, but that's not quite the same thing. Modest Genius talk 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

<moved back into the article now a source has been found> Modest Genius talk 22:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Physics
Is there calculation under WH telescope 105.112.113.95 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Modest Genius talk 16:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)