Talk:Celestial observation

message: hello, my name is Antonia and I am a University of Toronto Mississauga student studying CCT. As a term assignment we were told to chose a wikipedia stub and make sufficent edits to it. Being interested in Astronomy and star gazing I saw this as an opportunity to expand my own knowledge as well as share it with others. I am starting this talk page because this article does not have one already and so that 1) i can let you know who I am and what I'm doing and 2) any advice or comments on my edits or process can be shared here. I hope that this experience can teach me more about social media and internet information sharing. AntoniaUTM (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: The lead narrowly defines "celestial observation" and then the article proceeds to talk about a large variety of astonomical measurements. The second paragraph starts with: Celestial observation measurements are not absolute, rather vary according to what is being observed and how it is recorded.  The sentence completely ignores the importance of the time and place of measurement, and seems to suggest that how the measurement is recorded affects the measurement itself. The sentence beginning These although do not measure angular distance like fist explained typical of a celestial observation, ... seems incomprehensible unless "fist" is a typo for first, and then is ungrammatical.  For these and other reasons that should leap out to an expert, the article needs an entire rewrite. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with text

message: I have proposed that the article be deleted due to (1) a number of vague, confusing statements, (2) numerous factual inaccuracies, and (3) its redundancy with Observational astronomy and Celestial Navigation. I think that deletion is appropriate because there's no sense in cleaning up this article just to have it be redundant with other, more comprehensive articles. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to discuss my concerns in more detail. Astro4686 (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've contested the PROD. In your reasoning you stated it should be deleted because "it contains a number of vague, confusing statements and serious factual inaccuracies", though you fail to give any examples of this. I'm not an expert in the subject so I cannot verify whether that is right or not. I think that deletion here would be contentious, and therefore best having a full discussion at WP:AFD. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion (January 2016) 

message: I regret being so critical of this article, and I'd like to underscore that I'm sure that the author of this page was working in good faith. I don't mean to belittle the author's efforts or good intentions. However, even if all of the following concerns were addressed, the article would only repeat information already given in Observational astronomy (and, to a lesser extent, Celestial navigation).
* The lead section gives conflicting signals about the topic of the article. The very first sentence of the article says that celestial observations are measurements of the position of an object in the sky. This is covered at length in Celestial navigation. But the very next paragraph discusses celestial observations as if they are interchangeable with astronomical observations--a different topic covered in a different article. The rest of the article treats celestial observations as astronomical observations.
* The lead section refers to "recordings of light sparks by a spectroscope" as a type of celestial observation. The term "light sparks" is very vague, as is the statement that celestial observations "take into account the light emissions and transfer across the sky or clusters."
* The first paragraph of the Parameters section is vague and unnecessary. I think that it's just trying to convey that all astronomical observations have certain properties.
** The 'Position' subsection claims without attribution that a telescope must point "accurately to at least one-tenth of a minute." There is no firm rule as to how accurately a telescope must be pointed; it depends on the nature of the observations and the type of telescope. For some types of research, a positional accuracy of 1/10 of an arcminute would be unacceptable. The subsection needs to clarify how an object's apparent position in the sky is not the same as its location in celestial coordinates.
** The 'Time' subsection is vague and misleading. The speed of light (inaccurately given as 3 million m/s) isn't the relevant principle in this context; rather, it's that events have a finite duration. Also, the subsection refers to "time elapse of a celestial body light exposure to our naked eye," but this statement doesn't make sense. 
** The Wavelength subsection. Wavelength exists independently of filters, and it does not require passage through a celestial body. I'm assuming that the statement that "the spectrum of light is large and yet small to the naked eye" refers to the eye's inability to perceive anything other than visible light. If so, the second part of that sentence (not quoted) doesn't really follow. Furthermore, the actual relevance of wavelength in astronomy isn't given, but this is critical.
* Regarding the three subsections within 'Observation Types':
** 'Pictorial Observations' gives an incomplete and inaccurate description of the subject. The concept of galaxies is relatively modern, and to the best of my knowledge, ancient astronomers didn't have "theories of ... the existence of our galaxy," as the article claims without attribution. Similarly, the article provides no attribution for the questionable claim that "Cultures used pictorial observations ... to celebrate ceremonies and symbols of a greater power yet to be understood, like galaxy structures and planet formation." In addition, modern astronomers take images rather than drawing objects. The overall emphasis of this article seems to be on modern astronomy, but this section only discusses the distant past.
** 'Gravitational Lensing' is not really a separate type of observation. Rather, it is a particular astrophysical phenomenon which is observed in very specific circumstances. As an analogy, solar eclipses are an astronomical phenomenon, not a method of observation. Moreover, gravitational lensing is only used in certain fields of observational astronomy; it isn't universally useful in every type of observational astronomy. 
** 'Light Emissions' should say 'Spectroscopy.' The accompanying jargon is factually inaccurate. Spectroscopy is the study of the intensity of an object's light at different wavelengths (in layman's terms, how bright it is at different colors). It is also critical to explain why spectroscopy is useful in astronomy.
* Regarding the two subsections within 'Devices and Processes':
** The first sentence in 'Tools' mentions "small scale base observatories," but I have never heard this term used before. In addition, the article claims that the Spherical astrolabe is used to "view light emission across the galaxy," but this is factually incorrect. A spherical astrolabe is an obsolete device used in pre-modern astronomy to represent celestial coordinates. It was not an optical device. The subsequent phrase "... or simply within a quadrant that appers [sic] as a star, planet, or galaxy cluster" is very unclear.
** 'Process' is a very general discussion of ancient astronomy, but it comes across as a personal reflection which doesn't advance the article. The one source is a dead link. Perhaps this section was meant to summarize Scientific method, but I am unsure.
These revisions would require rewriting almost all of the article, but since there are already fine articles covering this material, I think that it's simpler to delete the article. I will submit an AfD nomination shortly, but perhaps someone will view the article more favorably than me. Astro4686 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the Article (Jan. 2016)