Talk:April 2014 lunar eclipse

Edit Warring

Please don't use edit summaries for discussions that should be taking place here regards to content. As far as the time zone table I'm neutral. It's helpful information, but on the other hand it does not seem encyclopedic. After the event has occurred no one will care what time it appeared in which time zone... so maybe I'm against it. As far as the "Blood Moon Prophecy"it does, unfortunately, seem to be getting pretty wide media coverage, judging by my search of the term on google.  — TimL • talk 11:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I would hardly call a single revert edit warring. Per BRD, the normal way to achieve consensus is through editing - when that fails, then it is time to discuss. Discussing every change before it is made is counter-productive. As to the two disputed points, I am largely in agreement. The times are useful but not necessarily of long term value. I am fine with inclusion or non-inclusion. The prophecy stuff is clearly a notable part of the eclipse. As stupid as we may think it is, reliable sources, not us, determine what is important. People will definitely be coming here for information, and it would be a failing on our part to exclude the info entirely (as opposed to properly downplaying it). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record I wasn't referring to a single revert, but multiple reversions, plus just trying to keep things from escalating vis a vis petty differences of opinion.  — TimL • talk 17:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The times were added by Tomruen (talk · contribs) and removed by 190.44.138.168 (talk · contribs). I welcome their feedback to this discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The times will help people see the eclipse. UT is confusing. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I restored, added Hawaii and New Zealand time zones, less sure on South American timezones, so I'll let someone else wants to check and clarify those. I think its useful after the event as well, for helping clarifying photos and memories. And its interesting to see the local times and date also because its not intuitive, at least for people whose IQ is below 186 or so. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

UT is a simple way of expressing when something occurs, and if you find it confusing, that's your problem. We link to an article about it, so anyone unfamiliar with the concept can find out more about it easily. The function of an encyclopaedia article about an eclipse is not to help people see the eclipse but to give encyclopaedic information about the eclipse. The UT time is certainly important; Brazilian and New Zealand local time is not necessary to an understanding of the nature of the event. 190.44.138.168 (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your vigilant desire to make understanding more difficult for readers. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have an argument in favour of making a table containing an arbitrary selection of local time zones, instead of just providing the universal and obvious UT, then please do share it. 190.44.138.168 (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your argument for exclusion is based on a charge of "geographical bias". That's a good standard for fairness, but not a Wikipedian law my knowledge. No one is stopping anyone from adding more time zones, and 12 or so columns isn't such a scary number to present. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So you don't have any actual reason for including this information. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or an almanac, and it's not the place of this article to present local conditions for the eclipse in every time zone in which it is visible. The table is not encyclopaedic. UT times tell us everything necessary about the eclipse. Unless you present an actual argument as to why local times in every time zone are encyclopaedia, I'll remove them. 190.44.138.168 (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you are WRONG, and Wikipedia IS used to help people plan and view upcoming eclipses, whether or not you believe that fact. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I would describe the times table as similar to a picture - it is not crucial to the understanding of the subject, but none-the-less adds value to the article. Specifically it helps users obtain information they may be seeking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So we're in agreement. Many things are not crucial, but are helpful. The primary danger is when information is included that only helpful for a small subset of readers, and clutters an article and makes it harder for average readers. But in this case, its a simple compact table that can be ignored by disinterested readers. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoever thinks that this discussion implies a consensus of any kind is pretty stupid. No-one has given an actual reason for the inclusion of local information instead of simply providing the UT times. The table is not encyclopaedic. It is not the place of an encyclopaedia to help people plan their eclipse viewing, as someone claimed, and the eclipse is now in the past so quite obviously providing local times is not useful to anyone. As there is clearly no reason to include an arbitrary table of local times, I will remove it again. 190.44.138.168 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary a reason was given, the analogy to a picture (or animation) was given. Even though the eclipse is over it shows when the eclipse occurred in various parts of the world (evening, middle of night very early in the morning) and allows people to quickly determine what the local time was when the eclipse occurred. You were asked not to remove the table without reaching consensus first. Since you have not I have reverted your changeyour change were reverted and your actions reported on the administrators noticeboard.  — TimL • talk 00:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And there are no reasons for your intense desire to remove it except that it offends your sensibilities. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no reasons, apart from all the ones I listed. Now remembering your supposed reasons:

"The times will help people see the eclipse. UT is confusing."

First one is (and always was) invalid, and the second one only demonstrates your own deficiencies, not any in the article. So, despite repeated requests, you never provided any proper reasons and it seems you just wanted to be awkward really. 190.44.138.168 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Though I can see the reasoning behind both sides here, it appears to me that there are two goals for deciding on the page content: 1. To help people plan for viewing the eclipse; 2. To provide encyclopedic information that people will use both before and after the event to understand it. In my view, the latter goal is more in keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia; the former goal is served by other online resources. However, I don't think that whether the time zone information is or is not provided is necessarily worth an edit war or a report to the admins - when in doubt, such neutral information is probably best left in the article and considered for removal later on, once some intellectual distance is gained - but I think in the long run, it's not necessary to have the time zone details as part of the article, since the UTC information is provided. Just my $0.02. Memetics (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't consider it neutral information. It falls outside the requirements of the article and it is damaging to include it. It's far from the worst thing that could be included, sure, but if we just leave stuff in because it causes too much aggravation to take it out, article quality declines. In fact, this is probably the biggest cause of low quality articles on wikipedia. If editors don't remain vigilant about maintaining encyclopaedic standards, the project is devalued. 190.44.138.168 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Come on now, a list of times is most certainly neutral. What POV could it possibly be pushing? Please stop removing the table. Three or four editors have said it is OK and only you have objected. Wikipedia works on consensus. You don't have to agree with the table's inclusion, but you do have to respect consensus and not continually remove the table just because you don't like it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is not worth an "edit war" which is why I find 190.44.138.168's behavior and attitude quite egregious.  — TimL • talk 14:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Penumbral shadow

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the earth's penumbral shadow on the moon is very hard to detect (many astronomers don't even consider total and partial penumbral eclipses) is there a way we can emphasize this in the article. Anyone who looks at the visibility table may mistakenly expect to see a visible change to the moon during the penumbral phase. On the other hand it is still of interest to those who have the appropriate equipment to detect it.  — TimL • talk 17:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, its more visible in comparison than appearance, and mostly the inner 1/4 of the shadow. This simulation shows an approximate comparison with the northern part of the moon nearest the edge of the umbral shadow. Basically if you can take a picture before it enters the penumbral shadow, its cool to compare later, but otherwise its not very exciting. There ought to be a good source somewhere on the web explaining this. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's an article, with real photo comparison, and some description for the penumbral eclipse which applies for total eclipses before and after. [1] Tom Ruen (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a direct link to a description of penumbral lunar eclipses that I should make a great source: [2]  — TimL • talk 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Blood Moon Prophecy

I have boldly shortened the Prophecy section of this article, because I feel that it is far too long and far too detailed when compared to its actual significance relative to the eclipse event. Since this is likely going to be challenged by someone, I thought I'd proactively start a discussion here. Per WP:UNDUE, we must ensure that this article "...fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I don't believe that we need a three-paragraph section about the Blood Moon Prophecy in this article, considering that it is a fringe theory / pseudoscience, and considering that the subject is adequately covered its own main article. In my opinion, it should be in the See Also section as a simple link, but I'm willing to leave a short section on it with a link to the main article. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 16:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Hagee and Biltz theory is based on the idea that the dates of the elcipses of the tetrad correspond to important Jewish holidays, However, as Earth & Sky points out, the Jewish Calendar is lunar, and thus the one sixth of all eclipses will occur during Passover or Tabernacles. Furthermore, tetrads are not as rare as implied by the proponents and three of the four eclipses will not be visible in biblical homeland of Israel, casting further doubt on Hagee and Blitz's interpretation." Here's my problem with this text, which was just recently restored by User:‎ThaddeusB: This text implies that the Blood Moon Prophecy is unlikely to be accurate because the series of eclipses is not rare, and most of the eclipses will not be visible in Israel. This implies that if the eclipses were rare, and/or if the eclipses were visible in Israel, then it would be much more likely that the Second Coming would take place. There are no scholarly articles or reliable sources (that I'm aware of) that support the view that the probability of the Rapture is directly proportional to the rarity of lunar eclipses, the proximity of lunar eclipses to Jewish holidays, and the Israeli visibility of lunar eclipses. Therefore, these assertions are synthesis and original research. I don't believe that these sentences are necessary or appropriate in this article. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 16:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE it is important not to let fringe claims go unchallenged, which is what the ultra short version (inadvertently) does. I am open to alternate wording, but it is important to have a mainstream response of some sort. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It is implicitly challenged, because there is no evidence to back up the claim, as is true with all of the hundreds of Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ. I would be ok with adding a sentence that asserts that the prophecy is not based on any scientific evidence. But, I believe it is a disservice to our readers to claim that the prophecy isn't likely to be true because all of the pseudo-scientific analysis says so. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Scottywong, would text saying it gained some media attention but was roundly criticized by both Christian and secular sources (without going into the feast days bit) be more acceptable to you? (For the record, I wouldn't call the prophecy pseudoscience as no attempt to use scientific methods was employed, rather it is pure religious mythology.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be ok with that. I agree that the prophecy isn't pseudoscience, but the refutation of the prophecy (based on eclipse rarity, etc.) seemed to be. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there are any further objections. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better. Thanks for being reasonable about this. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You too. I agree what we have now is better than what we started with. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if there were no text referring to the "prophecy" in the article, but a reference to the "Blood moon Prophecy" in the "see also" section would be ok with me.  — TimL • talk 00:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources have given it some weight, so we should too. It is not up to us to determine what is important, but rather it is our job to reflect what RS deem important. We now have a single paragraph which lets our readers know, "yes it was talked about, but no, it is not widely believed". That is the proper way to treat a notable fringe idea. It is certainly a notable aspect of the eclipse that a lot of people were talking about the prophecy. Our desire that it were not the case does not mean we should ignore it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks.  — TimL • talk 01:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate what you all have done with this section, and your reasoning behind the inclusion and the revisions makes sense to me. I think the current version needs a bit more of an introduction, though, something more general about doomsday prophecies (with a link), to provide clearer framing up front. I've been bold and made such a change (and tweaked the title a bit); hope you think it is an improvement to the section. Memetics (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Videos

I removed the videos added by Originalwana and replaced them with an external link to where they came from. We already have an animation of the eclipse and the source website also has additional animation that people may be interested in.  — TimL • talk 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree - article has plenty of illustrations as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Reason of Blood Moon Effect

The red-orange color is caused by Rayleigh scattering rather than refraction mentioned in the article. The light of Sun crosses the Earth's atmosphere twice while entering to our eye. Since the air scatters the blue light approx. 16 times more than red ones, the blue is almost fully scattered, while red (and higher wavelength components) remains in the originally white light of Sun. It is the same reason why we see the sky blue and the setting Sun red. Vamos (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct. The astronomer in the cited source apparently doesn't seem to know this, which makes me wonder how he has a job. At any rate, atmospheric refraction is also in play, it bends the reddish-orange light around the earth enough to deflect into into the earth's umbra.  — TimL • talk 12:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is now fixed and includes appropriate citation. Thanks for pointing it out.  — TimL • talk 12:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry to be fussy. I have first checked the option of refraction. However, the refractive index of air is changing only very slightly (0.0007%) in the range of visible domain (400-700nm) and, moreover, it is diminishing with the wavelength. So the blue light is (very very) slightly more refracted than the red one, consequently, the refraction could not be accounted for the phenomena at all. However, it is a particular issue concerning barely the topic.
All the best
Peter Vamos (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My simplistic understanding is Rayleigh scattering scatters the bluer light (so the red color remains), and refraction BENDS the remaining redder light into the umbral shadow. ... okay, good, that's what TimL new wording says! Tom Ruen (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Gallery instructions

I added a gallery section, with comment instructions visible during edit:

1. Upload images to commons: [3]
2. Pick a descriptive file name, like: File:Lunar_eclipse_April_2014_Honolulu_JohnDoe1.png
3. Add [[Category:Lunar_eclipse_of_2014_April_15]] to image
4. If a high quality image, add to gallery below (Subset will be selected later)

Its my own suggestions, but if anyone has better ideas, feel free to edit the instructions. My preference is to encourage a wide selection of photos, and to select a subset later depending on quality of image, geographic location, but they can all stay under the commons category if other wiki languages want to pick a different selection. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Table Redux

The time zones selected are not random and the reason for it was agreed to above.  — TimL • talk 01:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

U3 error for NZST

It's almost a little late now for the correction to be useful for anything but the historical record, but it appears that the ending time for the total eclipse (U3) for NZST is incorrect, not matching in the "minutes" column the times in other zones, whereas NZST does match the other zones for all the other events. The error may have occurred when, as documented under the talk section "Edit Warring," Tom Ruen added the New Zealand time zone:

"The times will help people see the eclipse. UT is confusing. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC) I restored, added Hawaii and New Zealand time zones, less sure on South American timezones, so I'll let someone else wants to check and clarify those. I think its useful after the event as well, for helping clarifying photos and memories. And its interesting to see the local times and date also because its not intuitive, at least for people whose IQ is below 186 or so. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)"

I didn't make the change myself because I have no evidence that what is shown is incorrect, other than my common sense, which is not evidence. Wikifan2744 (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Date format

This article's original author chose a mdy date format. When Tomruen expanded the article, he likewise used mdy dates. When I did the second round of expansion, I also used mdy style dates. Someone (or several users) has now changed it to dmy dates. Per WP:DATEFORMAT, "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk." There is are no strong national ties here, so the formatting should not have been changed w/o seeking consensus. I don't really care very much about which format is used, but I do care the policy was not followed. If anyone wants to change it back to mdy, policy is on your side. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ThaddeusB for the policy info. It is an ugly fight to defend, also given there's over 100 eclipse articles ready for randomization of formats. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox template

Can an infobox template be created to replace the current plain table? Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It was done with the solar eclipses: Template:Infobox_Solar_eclipse Tom Ruen (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd also support the creation of a template. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Good article

Congratulations to current editors. This page is featured on the Wikipedia home page, "Current News" with a great eclipse picture. In improving the article, it is always good to remember what is good about the article. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad Redirect?

This article has a weird redirect. The lead says that this lunar eclipse will be the first of four total lunar eclipses forming a tetrad. However, tetrad (astronomy) redirects to total penumbral lunar eclipse. This eclipse was a total eclipse, not a total penumbral eclipse. Something is wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no central article on tetrads, but the article on penumbral total eclipse has statistics about them. ... Okay, I split off an article with only the tetrads. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Blood moon prophecy"

I trimmed the section on the Blood Moon Prophecy to a short sentence, per WP:UNDUE. This article is about the astronomical event, even the sources relating to the prophecy seem uncertain that more than a few people believe it. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed extensively above. Please see that discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That supports inclusion, I left it included. It does not support the weight you gave it, whihc is clearly undue. Feel free to suggest a shorter version in proportion to its marginal significance. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't agree it is "clearly" undue - and clearly no one else saw it as clearly undue since we already discussed the amount of weight given twice and arrived at the length it was at. Reliable sources have given the prophecy nonsense quite a lot of weight, as probably 40-50% of the news stories on the eclipse at least mentioned it. Others devoted entire articles to it. To see the pervasiveness of the phenomenon one only has to note that almost everyone was calling it a "blood moon", a strange term for an eclipse that was only rarely used in the past

I think the paragraph needs to do three things: say what the prophesy is, say it gained a lot of attention, and say few believed it. The notability of the idea is not determined by how many people bought into it, but rather how much coverage reliable sources gave it. User:Memetics' addition that said such proclamations are common provided good context, I think. I suppose all that could be done with less words than before, but there isn't a WEIGHT issue here. We've devoted barely any attention to the idea, and put what little text we did give it dead last.--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I reworked it a bit. It is very slightly longer now (in text - most of the added bytes are from the refs). It is still has little weight - less than 10% of the article (the second or third shortest of 13 paragraphs) and placed dead last - and is still shorter than the consensus version that was in place previously. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Current version looks fine to me - neutral, accurate, and with what I'd consider appropriate stress on each element. Overall better (imo) than how it was when last I commented. Good work, all. Memetics (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Promoted 22:03, 22 July 2014.

This review is transcluded from Talk:April 2014 lunar eclipse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 18:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Great, I look forward to seeing what you have to say. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Review GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. Has an appropriate reference section: B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Overall: Pass or Fail: Just a few short issues. Add a period at the end of captions that are complete sentences. Periods at the end of notes that are complete sentences. Instead of "Related eclipse" as the sub-head, that section covers more Background about the eclipse (including the tetrad.) Let me know what you think/make changes, and it will be ready to be promoted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC) My apologies about the delay in responding - I was on vacation. I will address the concerns within the next 24 hours or so. Thanks for your review! --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) @ThaddeusB: Whats the status? TLSuda (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC) I have made the requested changes and a few other minor improvements. Sorry for delay. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC) It looks good, great work. I'm happy to promote this to Good Article! Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on April 2014 lunar eclipse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823042532/http://www.alpo-astronomy.org/jbeish/2014_MARS.htm to http://www.alpo-astronomy.org/jbeish/2014_MARS.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lunar eclipse 04-15-2014 by R Jay GaBany.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lunar eclipse 04-15-2014 by R Jay GaBany.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 21, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The total lunar eclipse that occurred in April 2014, as viewed from Charleston, West Virginia. The first of two total lunar eclipses in 2014, it was visible in the Americas and the Pacific Ocean region. Although within the Earth's shadow, the eclipsed moon is lit by sunlight refracted and scattered by the Earth's atmosphere, and more of this light reaches the outer parts of the umbra than the center of it. During this eclipse, the Moon passed south of the center of the umbra, so its southern part was noticeably lighter.Photograph: Robert Jay GaBany