Talk:Halley's Comet
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Halley's Comet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Halley's Comet is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 25, 2014, May 25, 2016, December 25, 2018, and December 25, 2023. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
![]() | Material from Comet appearances in china was split to Halley's Comet on 15 November 2016 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Comet appearances in china. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
ref label b?
[edit]In "Structure and composition" is "[b]" which seems to do nothing. Anyone know what this is for or how to fix it? Al Begamut (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Al Begamut: This has been the case since the article was vandalized on 8 March 2010, 14 years ago.[1] The edit was partially, but not completely, reverted 12 minutes later,[2] by what may well have been the same editor who originally vandalized it (both were made by unregistered IPs). The page syntax has been broken ever since. It should work again now.[3]
- I have never seen a Featured Article that had such blatant vandalism stand for so long. Renerpho (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate very much your detailed explanation; as an editor with limited range of experience, this insight is helpful to me. Al Begamut (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Al Begamut: This is now listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Vandalism, as the longest undetected vandalism on a featured article. Thanks again for bringing it to our attention! Renerpho (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, all right then. Pleased to have helped! Al Begamut (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Al Begamut: This is now listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Vandalism, as the longest undetected vandalism on a featured article. Thanks again for bringing it to our attention! Renerpho (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate very much your detailed explanation; as an editor with limited range of experience, this insight is helpful to me. Al Begamut (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
684 CE depiction?
[edit]The table of apparitions claims that the comet is depicted in the Nuremberg Chronicle, which for some time was thought to be the oldest depiction of a comet. This claim, which was popular since the 1960s,[1] has been disproven in 1989.[2] I don't know why it is in this Featured Article, and with a source from 1985![3] Renerpho (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Renerpho (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I removed both mentions of it. Renerpho (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ley, Willy (October 1967). "The Worst of All the Comets". Galaxy Science Fiction. p. 99.
- ^ Olson, R. J. M.; Pasachoff, J. M. (1989). "Is Comet p/ Halley of 684-A.D. Recorded in the Nuremberg Chronicle?". Journal for the History of Astronomy. 20 (3/OCT): 171–173. Bibcode:1989JHA....20..171O.
- ^ http://www.ianridpath.com/halley/halley6.html
Considering nomination for FAR
[edit]I am considering nominating this article for Featured Article Review. Looking at the article talk page, it is apparent that nobody is taking care of the maintenance of this level-4 vital article. There has been a case of blatant vandalism that was introduced two months after the article was promoted to FA status, in March 2010, which broke the page syntax. The issue was raised on the talk page three months ago, with no replies. I just corrected it now, after it stood in the article for 14 years.[4]
This was just after I had tagged a claim about a historical observation of the comet as dubious (what to do about it remains to be discussed, see Talk:Halley's Comet#684 CE depiction?). That particular claim was popular since the 1960s, but was disproven in 1989. It stands in the article twice -- first with a source from 1985, and then a second time without a source. It was first introduced in January 2009,[5] and has remained completely unreferenced for a long time (only to be eventually referenced with an outdated source, rather than be removed). While not as outrageous as the vandalism, it suggests to me that this article has not been thoroughly reviewed in December 2009, or when it became a FA in 2010.
I didn't look very hard... What else is there that to be found that could disqualify this article from FA status? Renerpho (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to take this to FAR, I expect you to be here for the long haul. Your FAR of Sedna was a farce. You disappeared after 4 days and left me to carry the load for a clueless review team for eight solid months. And the article wasn't ultimately changed much at all. I fully expect this FAR to go exactly the same way. I hope you're willing to prove me wrong. Serendipodous 13:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: Following that last FAR, I said I'd probably not nominate anything for FAR again. I've been discussing this question off-wiki today, and I decided I won't nominate Halley's Comet, because that's an experience I don't want to repeat (for myself, and others).
- That doesn't mean that there aren't problems with the references for this article, beyond what I said before: Renerpho (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Resolved issues
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
Fixed problems in lede section[edit]
Fixed problems in Computation of orbit section[edit]
Fixed problems in Orbit and origin section[edit]
Fixed problems in Structure and composition section[edit]
General comments (fixed)[edit](None yet) Before 1066 (fixed)[edit]
1066 (fixed)[edit]
1145–1378 (fixed)[edit]
1835 (fixed)[edit]
1910 (fixed)[edit]
1986 (fixed)[edit]
After 1986 (fixed)[edit](None yet) 2061 (fixed)[edit]
Fixed problems in Apparitions section[edit]
Images[edit]
Shortened footnote template[edit]The article is citing sources in the bibliography, but is doing so inconsistently. I'd like to convert those to use the {{sfn}} template. Does anybody object? Praemonitus (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
|
To be done
[edit]I am moving the remaining issues down here, to keep the growing list a bit more manageable. Renerpho (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I haved checked the following sections for problems: Renerpho (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lede:
Done
- Computation of orbit:
Done
- Orbit and origin:
Done
- Structure and composition:
Done
- History:
Not done
- Apparitions:
Not done
- Lede:
Pending Our references "kronk", "Kronk2009", and cometography.com can all be combined into one if we just keep "Kronk2009" (with appropriate page numbers), which then could be put into the bibliography. Renerpho (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have the knowledge of wiki markup to pull that off, so it would be simpler if you just did that. Serendipodous 17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Problems in lede section
[edit]Pending Do we need the other citation, for
is consistently visible to the naked eye from Earth
? The only reason I can think of why this may be challenged is a misinterpretation of the word consistently, and if that's the issue then maybe we should rephrase it. Renerpho (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- Thinking about it, the source may not actually support what we're saying. The difference is subtle; to quote our source:[44]
Among those comets that can be seen easily with the naked eye, Comet Halley, with an average period of 76 years, is the only one that returns in a single lifetime.
Our version isn't quite the same. For example, comet 12P/Pons-Brooks reached +3 mag in 1884, +6 mag in 1954,[45] and was visible to the naked eye again this year, at +4 mag.[46] There is a difference between "easy" and "consistent". What the article is saying right now is better than the version that was featured on the Main Page in 2010 ("the only naked-eye comet that might appear twice in a human lifetime"), which may just be wrong, but I think it's still not great... Renerpho (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thinking about it, the source may not actually support what we're saying. The difference is subtle; to quote our source:[44]
Problems in Computation of orbit section
[edit]Pending Quote:
a period that has since been found to vary between 74 and 79 years
-- The problems with that statement are already discussed elsewhere, compare "Problems in lede section" and "Problems in Orbit and origin section" (the period often gets larger than 79 years). Renerpho (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- I have changed this to say
between 72 and 80 years
, so that it agrees with what we say in the lede. We use slightly different numbers (74 to 80 years) in the introduction to the Orbit and origin section, but that comes with the qualifiers "has varied" (past tense; the number 72 is due to the 2134 apparition) and "since 240 BC". Our sources, including [47], generally go back further in time than that, so we may have to further qualify the time frame whenever we give a range of orbital periods. Compare [48], who calculate periods around 68 years for the late 2nd millennium BC. Renerpho (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed this to say
Pending Walker (1985), currently ref. 64, goes into a bit of detail about the description in the Chinese chronicle from 240 BC. Apparently, that discovery was first announced in a French journal in 1846, and Walker notes that the 1984 (re)discovery of the Babylonian tablets "represents the first significant addition to our knowledge of the past history of the comet since the French publication of Chinese observations in 1846". The problem is that the Wikipedia article Records of the Grand Historian doesn't mention that 1846 paper, or what Walker's reference is about. The Chinese work was known before 1846, so what is it that was discovered that year? I cannot find the source. Stephenson doesn't provide any details either. Something important was published about Halley's comet in 1846 (likely important enough that we have to mention it), but I have no idea what it is. Renerpho (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion about observational history
|
---|
|
Problems in Orbit and origin section
[edit]Pending Quote from the article:
Another point of origin for the Halley-type comets was proposed in 2008, when a trans-Neptunian object with a retrograde orbit similar to Halley's was discovered, 2008 KV42, whose orbit takes it from just outside that of Uranus to twice the distance of Pluto. It may be a member of a new population of small Solar System bodies that serves as the source of Halley-type comets.
The source for this is currently Gladman (2009). However, Petit et al. (2017)[57] says that "these objects may point to a new source that feeds large-i TNOs into the planetary system (Gladman et al. 2009). This may simultaneously be the source of the Halley-type comets (see Levison et al. 2006)", so it seems they credit the idea to [58]. Whether that's justified or not, Levison's work is currently not referenced by our article, and I think it should be.
It's worth looking for dynamical studies that were published more recently, perhaps based on other objects. 2008 KV42 is no longer the only object of this kind (the Minor Planet Center lists 15 objects with similar orbits[59], most of them discovered in the last ten years). Renerpho (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Pending Quote:
Observations conducted around the time of Halley's appearance in 1986 suggested that the comet could additionally perturb the Eta Aquariids, although it might not be the parent of that shower.
That's blatant nonsense. The comet wouldn't be able to perturb a meteor shower (what mechanism would be at play for such a perturbation? gravity??), and it is very much the parent body of that shower. Why did the author expect an increase in Eta Aquariid activity during 1983-1986, when the shower is associated with outbursts that occurred during the 1st millennium AD? Why do we give WP:UNDUE weight to a single sentence written by an author who, as far as I can tell, has never published anything about astronomy before or since, and whose credentials are a secondary school? Is that article even peer-reviewed? Why not instead cite the seminal paper on the issue, Egal (2020)?[4] Renerpho (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)- The offending section has been replaced. There may be ways to improve this (noted below), and I think it's worth doing so, but for now this looks alright. Renerpho (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is a schematic in one of our sources, Hughes (1987), The History of Halley's Comet, page 104, figure 1. It shows how the Earth gets close to Halley's orbit twice a year, close enough to pass through the region that's filled with cometary dust particles. The caption says:
An annulus of dust surrounds the orbit of P/Halley and has been produced by the decay of the comet at previous apparitions. Earth intersects the annulus in October, when Halley dust is 'seen' as the agent responsible for the Orionid meteor shower and in April and early May as the Eta Aquarid shower. [...] In May the Earth passes within 0.065 AU of the comet orbit and in October within 0.154 AU.
Maybe we can create something similar to this figure, to accompany this section? Just an idea...Renerpho (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- In a short lecture about her 2020 paper that is available on YouTube,[60] Egal talks about that toroidal model described by Hughes. She shows that it doesn't explain the meteor showers associated with Halley's Comet, so I guess that figure in Hughes (1987) is outdated. Renerpho (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- A side-by-side comparison of sources:
- Quote from the American Meteor Society website:[61]
The meteors we currently see as members of the Eta Aquariid shower separated from Halley’s Comet hundreds of years ago. The current orbit of Halley’s Comet does not pass close enough to the Earth to be a source of meteoric activity.
- Quote from our (dubious) source:[62]
No increase was found in the frequency of fall of meteors in 1986, the year of Halley's comet. This showed that this meteor shower has not been formed from the debris left out by Halley's comet.
Yes, that's true, the debris released from Halley's Comet in 1986 wasn't responsible for the Eta Aquariids. Nobody expected them to be, that's not how meteor showers work. According to Auriane Egal, the particles we observe today were mostly released about 1500 to 5000 years ago (which is younger than the Orionids, but still far removed from any present-day activity). Her paper is linked above. Renerpho (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Pending Quote:
(Because it is retrograde, the true inclination is 162°.)
Why is this put in brackets? We're not doing this anywhere else in the article, and I don't understand what motivates it here. The reference[63] neither includes the words "retrograde" nor "true inclination", instead leading to a random(?) computation of Halley's orbit before 760 AD. Why is that relevant here? Renerpho (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Pending Quote:
it has one of the highest velocities relative to the Earth of any object in the Solar System
-- Source? Context? Maybe we could point to someone who talks about the velocity distribution of comets? Fig.4 in [64] comes to mind, although it doesn't mention Halley's Comet specifically. I am also looking for a reference that explains why 72 km/s is the upper limit (something better than [65]). If anyone can find a good one, that'd be nice. Renerpho (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Problems in Structure and composition section
[edit]I've made a first pass of the first two paragraphs of this section (I'll look at the remaining two paragraphs later). A number of issues could be fixed immediately, see the list of "fixed" issues, and the recent revisions to the article, but many could not: Renerpho (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Pending Quote:
Gas molecules in the coma absorb solar light and then re-radiate it at different wavelengths, a phenomenon known as fluorescence
-- There is no reference for this. I'd suggest to change the link to resonance fluorescence, and then select one of the papers from [66] as a citation. However, I'm not entirely sure if this isn't approaching WP:SYNTH territory. Note that neither of Comet, Comet tail or Coma (comet) mention the word "fluorescence", and doing so here could be undue. A search for articles that explicitly link the glow of comets to fluorescence brings up very few convincing results. Renerpho (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Pending Quote:
As a fraction of the gas molecules in the coma are ionized by the solar ultraviolet radiation
-- Our reference [67] mentions neither ionization nor UV radiation. Renerpho (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Pending Quote:
Ground-based observations of coma brightness suggested that Halley's rotation period was about 7.4 days. Images taken by the various spacecraft, along with observations of the jets and shell, suggested a period of 52 hours.
-- Here's what our source says about this (Keller et al., §2.2.5, p.216):[68] "Shortly after the encounters with Comet Halley, the rotation period of the nucleus was derived by comparing the various images during the three flybys. In a first-order approach, a stable rotation around the axis of maximum inertia (perpendicular to the long axis) was assumed (Wilhelm, 1987; Sagdeev et al., 1989). Fits were found for a period slightly above 50 h (2.2 d). Groundbased observations of the coma brightness variations yielded a period of about 7 d, but dynamical features (jets, shells) were in agreement with the 2.2-d periodicity. It is now widely assumed that the spin state of Comet Halley is excited, i.e., that the rotation is not in its energetic minimum and includes nutation (Sagdeev et al., 1989; Samarasinha and A’Hearn, 1991; Belton et al., 1991). There is no common understanding of the details (Keller and Jorda, 2002). Three flybys and a long series of groundbased observations were not sufficient to pin down the rotational parameters."
I think we should sight the papers mentioned there, and update our article accordingly. Right now, we neither discuss possible reasons for the discrepancy between groundbased and in-situ observations, nor the rest of what's known about Halley's rotation (including the ongoing debate about the details). And by the way, where did we get the figures of 7.4 days and 52 hours? Clearly not from the source we're citing... Renerpho (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Pending Quote:
Changes in the flow of the solar wind can cause disconnection events, in which the tail completely breaks off from the nucleus.
-- Writing about two of the disconnection events (DE) that were observed during Halley's 1986 apparition, the authors of our source (Brosius et al., p.267-275) attribute them to a reversal in the polarity of the interplanetary magnetic field. Since Brosius only looked at two specific DE, that's not really a satisfactory citation for what we're saying. I think the article Plasma structures in comets P /Halley and Giacobini-Zinner by Brandt&Niedner, p.281-286 in the same volume, is more interesting. They look at all 16 DE observed in 1985/86, and more broadly address the history of the study of DE, from the early 1900s to the rediscovery of the phenomenon by the authors in 1978 and the conclusions from observing comet Halley. Renerpho (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs of the section (most issues with this could be fixed immediately): Renerpho (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Pending Quote:
More recent work suggests that Halley will evaporate, or split in two, within the next few tens of thousands of years, or will be ejected from the Solar System within a few hundred thousand years.
-- The issue is the word "evaporate". I am conflicted on this one. I have changed most instances throughout the article from "evaporate" to "sublime", but this here seems to be a different sense of the word "evaporate", which could be acceptable. Opinions? Renerpho (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- From what I recall evaporate is the accepted term for the death of comets (its used for Kreutz sungrazers for example). Problem is its based on the dirty snowball model rater than the snowey dirtball one.©Geni (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this can be handled with a note that explains the meaning of the word, and what model it stems from? Renerpho (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- From what I recall evaporate is the accepted term for the death of comets (its used for Kreutz sungrazers for example). Problem is its based on the dirty snowball model rater than the snowey dirtball one.©Geni (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
General comments
[edit]Pending In his book The History of Halley's Comet (currently ref.31), David Hughes writes that "It's[sic] brightness near perihelion is such that, in any random selection of historic comets, P/Halley appears at the frequency of about 1 in 8." Ignoring the typo, I find that statement interesting, and suggest that we include it. We currently provide no context for the various collections of historical observations we use, and this would work nicely. Renerpho (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Pending Ref.59 (a 2010 BBC News story) is based on an article in Journal of Cosmology,[69] which is not peer-reviewed, and is generally regarded as WP:FRINGE. BBC News may generally be reliable, but it's not useful for science news. Renerpho (talk)
- I've moved this back from the "fixed" section. This has made it into a lot of sources that we would generally regard as reliable. Phys.org talked about it, taking it at face value. NewScientist treats it as fact as well. Neither of them question the obvious problems with a source that isn't peer-reviewed, or with the fact that the lead author is a philosopher (not a historian or astronomer). Just ignoring this may not be feasible, and I think we have to mention it in some form. Taking it as truth isn't an option either. Renerpho (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion about the "Computation of orbit" section, particularly about the various studies by Cowell&Crommelin (1907-1910) and Pontécoulant (1829-1835), may inform how to deal with this. Renerpho (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- No mention of this that I can find doesn't cite the source. Serendipodous 19:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a trail of evidence that ultimately leads back to the fringe paper in every case I've looked at. If you find a source that doesn't depend on it, please let me know. Ideally something more than a pop-sci news article; something that's itself a peer-reviewed article. With the number of "reliable" sources (phys.org, bbc, newscientist etc) this has received enough coverage that someone could reasonably add it to the article, without noticing the problem at the root of all of this. My question is: Can we deal with this proactively, by mentioning the paper and the problems with it? Renerpho (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- No mention of this that I can find doesn't cite the source. Serendipodous 19:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion about the "Computation of orbit" section, particularly about the various studies by Cowell&Crommelin (1907-1910) and Pontécoulant (1829-1835), may inform how to deal with this. Renerpho (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've moved this back from the "fixed" section. This has made it into a lot of sources that we would generally regard as reliable. Phys.org talked about it, taking it at face value. NewScientist treats it as fact as well. Neither of them question the obvious problems with a source that isn't peer-reviewed, or with the fact that the lead author is a philosopher (not a historian or astronomer). Just ignoring this may not be feasible, and I think we have to mention it in some form. Taking it as truth isn't an option either. Renerpho (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not going to systematically check the sections about 1835 and earlier, until we have rewritten the Halley's Comet#Computation of orbit history, currently being discussed above (otherwise I risk wasting my time). For the years 1910 and later, here's what I have so far: Renerpho (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Before 1066
[edit](Currently none)
1835
[edit]Pending Quote:
The time to Halley's return in 1910 would be only 74.42 years, one of the shortest known periods of its return, which is calculated to be as long as 79 years owing to the effects of the planets.
-- This relates to the issue of whether the orbital period ranges from 75-79 years, 72-80 years, or something else. Our source [70] for this sentence says:The period varies from appearance to appearance because of the gravitational effects of the planets. Measured from one perihelion passage to the next, Halley's period has been as short as 74.42 years (1835-1910) and as long as 79.25 years (451-530).
I propose that we rephrase the entire sentence, to get rid of the clumsy "is calculated to be" and the unspecified "effects of the planets", and give both times to 0.01 year precision. Renerpho (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1910
[edit]Pending Quote:
The comet added to the unrest in China on the eve of the Xinhai Revolution that would end the last dynasty in 1911
-- Source? Xinhai Revolution says nothing about the comet, despite its vast coverage. Hutson's quote doesn't establish either that the appearance of the comet had any significance, just that some people in some places acted irrationally, but there would be constant revolution everywhere if that was enough! Renerpho (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- I don't get what you're talking about here. The source directly references Halley's Comet. Serendipodous 19:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, here, but where does it establish a connection to the Xinhai Revolution? The source is saying the comet caused unrest and fear in 1910-11; and the Xinhai Revolution took place in 1911. That the two events were related is WP:SYNTH unless the source connects them. Renerpho (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't get what you're talking about here. The source directly references Halley's Comet. Serendipodous 19:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Pending Quote:
The 1910 visitation is also recorded as being the travelling companion of Hedley Churchward, the first known English Muslim to make the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca. However, his explanation of its scientific predictability did not meet with favour in the Holy City.
-- Our reference for this (Rosenthal, 1931) needs a page number. Right now, I cannot verify if anything like this is supported by the source. I'm not even sure what we're trying to say here, so I guess this will have to be expanded by at least another sentence or two. The only mention of the comet in our article about Hedley Churchward is this:Having arrived in Jeddah, Hedley encountered no problem with the officials and set off the following evening with two donkeys and a pilgrim guide with Halley's Comet a brilliant spectacle in the heavens.
It doesn't come with a reference; in fact, the entire story about Churchward's haj in that article is completely unreferenced. Renerpho (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rosenthal (1931) is here in a poor but mostly legible scan. AstroLynx (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Using the archive's search function, which works reasonably well despite the poor scan, here are two quotes from Rosenthal (1931) that could be relevant:
- Page 81:
Learned Mahomedans told me it was a very fortunate omen seeing that it occurred during my Pilgrimage. Every Arab I found studying the spectacle showed impressive reverence for the work of the Almighty. Throughout the journey, I beheld that wonderful belt of flame over the Northern sky and I think Halley’s Comet added a good deal to my prestige.
- Page 144:
Our talk drifted, and presently we looked at the comet. "These people," said the Matof
[pilgrim guide, ed.]pointing at his companions, "think yon are a lucky man to have come with such a stat."
- I find nothing about the reception of him trying to explain it scientifically, but maybe it's hidden somewhere (reading the whole book would take too long). Renerpho (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would have liked to ask the user who added this, but unfortunately it is from an IP who only made a single edit (08:53, 12 June 2016). Renerpho (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rosenthal (1931) is here in a poor but mostly legible scan. AstroLynx (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Pending Quote:
Twain died on 21 April 1910, the day following the comet's subsequent perihelion.[126]
-- Our current ref.126 doesn't mention the comet. If the source is meant to be for the day of death the (which I don't think needs a source, but okay) then it should be put after the day of death. We'd still need a source that connects the time of the perihelion passage with Twain's passing, to avoid WP:SYNTH issues. Renerpho (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- All that sentence is doing is stating two facts. Any numenistic inferences are made solely in the mind of the reader. Serendipodous 19:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you serious? The entire story is based on such inferences. It is mere trivia without them, and if you're right then this should be removed entirely. Renerpho (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- All that sentence is doing is stating two facts. Any numenistic inferences are made solely in the mind of the reader. Serendipodous 19:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
1986
[edit]Pending Quote:
Scheduled for March 1986, STS-61-E was a Columbia mission carrying the ASTRO-1 platform to study the comet
-- I would like to add a wiki-link for ASTRO-1, but I'm not sure what to use. The related article STS-35 does something strange, writing "ASTRO-1, a Spacelab observatory consisting of four telescopes", where the wiki-link for ASTRO-1 is a manual redirect to Astronomy. I find that a rather odd thing to do. Renerpho (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- ASTRO-1 consisted of four separate telescopes, and we have articles for two of them: Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope and Wisconsin Ultraviolet Photo-Polarimeter Experiment. The latter doesn't mention that it was part of the ASTRO-1 mission, while the former has a manual redirect from Astro-1 mission (sic) to STS-35. Neither mentions Halley's Comet, or that the mission had been delayed after the Challenger disaster. Renerpho (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
After 1986
[edit](Currently none)
2061
[edit](Currently none)
2134
[edit](Currently none)
Problems in Apparitions section
[edit]Pending Our table is using Kinoshita and Yeomans as references. Yeomans is the general source for the Earth approach, and Kinoshita is used for some of the perihelion dates (also in the lede). Right now, Yeomans is our source for the Earth approach in 2061; it says nothing at all about that apparition. Kinoshita gives a distance (0.5543 au), but it is different from ours (0.477 au). Renerpho (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Pending Quote:
for every apparition of Halley's Comet from 240 BC, the earliest documented widespread sighting
-- Do we have documentary evidence that the 240 BC apparition was a "widespread sighting"? Kronk, p.6[71] says that the 240 BC apparition is known from a single source with "scant details". The same is true for some of the other apparitions from antiquity. Renerpho (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Yeomans, D. K.; Kiang, T (1981). "The long-term motion of comet Halley". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 197 (3). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 633–646.
- ^ Olson, Roberta J. M. (May 1979). "Giotto's portrait of Halley's Comet". Scientific American. 240 (5): 160–171.
- ^ a b c Chang, Y. C. (1979). "Halley's comet: Tendencies in its orbital evolution and its ancient history". Chinese Astronomy. 3 (1): 120–131. doi:10.1016/0146-6364(79)90084-7.
- ^ Egal, A.; Brown, P. G.; Rendtel, J.; Campbell-Brown, M.; Wiegert, P. (2020). "Activity of the Eta-Aquariid and Orionid meteor showers". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 640 (A58). arXiv:2006.08576. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038115.
Renerpho
[edit]Just to say dude, many of your issues are essentially nitpicks, and can be solved by you just, ya know, editing the article instead of flooding the talk page with novel-length verbiage. Serendipodous 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: You know how to tag someone, and that you could bring things to my user talk page instead if you wanted to talk to me. By creating a section with my name as the title, I assume you want to talk about me here? Let's discuss my edits, and how I should move forward. I'll try to keep this at below novel-length...
- There wouldn't be so much text if there weren't so many issues with this article. Are some of them nitpicks? Absolutely! I'm picking the article apart, and I believe that what I've brought up were valid problems. Sometimes it needs some digging to even find out if something is a problem or not. The article deserves that attention, even if it gets annoying (and I did get annoyed a few times[72]).
- I edit the article immediately if I see an obvious solution. I often got to solve things listed here myself, after some thought. Because of this article's Featured and Vital Article status, I tend to be extra thorough with documenting issues (and progress), and maybe more nitpicky with them. I am aware of that. I have done what I could to keep the talk page section as tidy as possible. You may notice, for instance, that I've kept track of fixed problems (for each of the issues you've fixed I say thank you). I had considered at several points to copy the article and this talk page into my sandbox, and work on it there. If the consensus is that that's a good idea, I'll consider it again. It is my own belief that it would result in progress to cease entirely, and in all the problems to be buried again. I very much appreciate the discussions I've had here with, for example, AstroLynx. There has been good progress, and I believe that neither of us could have resolved some of those issues on our own.
- I have put a lot of work into this article over the past two weeks. Most of that isn't documented on-wiki, but where it relates to a specific issue with the article, it will be brought up here. I can afford doing that work right now, because I'm interested in the subject and because it's my free time, but of course I won't keep doing it at this pace. There will be breaks, and things will naturally slow down. I intend to continue "nitpicking", if that's what you want to call it (I am in this for the long haul, if needed). But I don't have to, if what I'm doing is nonproductive. Is that the case?
- I don't expect as much as a "thank you", but I hope that the work I've done here so far is appreciated. I've enjoyed it, and it would be a shame if an article with so much potential was kept in its current, unfinished state. Renerpho (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I would find it a lot easier to answer your issues if I could read the text without getting overwhelmed. Serendipodous 12:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Understandable. Would merely slowing down help already? Renerpho (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. That would be great. Serendipodous 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- That can be arranged (in fact, it was unavoidable). Renerpho (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you collapse the fixed section so I don't have to scroll through it? Serendipodous 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Renerpho (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you collapse the fixed section so I don't have to scroll through it? Serendipodous 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- That can be arranged (in fact, it was unavoidable). Renerpho (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. That would be great. Serendipodous 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Renerpho: I've addressed most of your issues. It would help if you could trim the finished material. Serendipodous 17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: Thank you! Hopefully I can work on that tomorrow. Renerpho (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Renerpho:: Have you had a chance yet? Serendipodous 16:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure you'd have been the first to see it. I haven't forgotten. Please be a bit more patient. Renerpho (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: I am starting to look through the changes. Sections "computation of orbit" and "orbit and origin" done, no problems found so far... Sorry for the wait. Renerpho (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'm done - thanks for the changes, both addressing some of the problems here, and for the many smaller fixes. Let me know if I've missed anything, especially if I've missed changes that are related to problems raised above. Renerpho (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: I'd appreciate it if you replied to my replies. Serendipodous 10:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: Done. I've moved some to the "fixed" section, and commented on the rest. Renerpho (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: I'd appreciate it if you replied to my replies. Serendipodous 10:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'm done - thanks for the changes, both addressing some of the problems here, and for the many smaller fixes. Let me know if I've missed anything, especially if I've missed changes that are related to problems raised above. Renerpho (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: I am starting to look through the changes. Sections "computation of orbit" and "orbit and origin" done, no problems found so far... Sorry for the wait. Renerpho (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Physical sciences
- FA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Physical sciences
- FA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- FA-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- FA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class Astronomical objects articles
- Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
- FA-Class Solar System articles
- Top-importance Solar System articles
- Solar System task force
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report