Talk:White House Astronomy Night/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notices posted of new article creation

I've gone ahead and posted notices of this new article creation, to the following talk pages:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject District of Columbia
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight
5. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science
6. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Environmental Record task force
7. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment
8. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education
9. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy
10. User talk:Cirt

— Cirt (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for GA

I've nominated this article for Good Article quality consideration, at Good Article nominations. — Cirt (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: I can review this article when you're done reviewing mine (Juno (spacecraft)). Your article isn't too long so it should be simple. Cheers, Huritisho 07:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wish, that would be most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, Huritisho, I'd prefer if you reviewed Fizeau–Foucault apparatus, which is one ahead of my nomination in the queue at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Topic_lists/Natural_sciences#Physics_and_astronomy. That way, someone who was waiting longer than I for a GA Reviewer, gets one, sooner. And we don't get stuck reviewing each other's articles one after the other. Okay? — Cirt (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Huritisho 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Huritisho, that makes me feel a lot better ! — Cirt (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Uhh I'm glad to help :) And by the way, are you reviewing Juno (spacecraft)? Or is it normal to take a while to review? Cheers, Huritisho 15:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huritisho:It's been less than twenty-four-hours. The review process can take up to seven days. — Cirt (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Oh. Hey just a question out of curiosity. If you find a problem in the reviewing process, can you fix the error yourself or does someone else other than the reviewer has to fix the mistake? Huritisho 16:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Huritisho has been confirmed and blocked as a sock of Tetra quark (talk · contribs), per investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tetra quark. I'd no idea that process was going on, and it's unfortunate, but relevant to note here. — Cirt (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

Recent removal of sourced info as "coat" is inaccurate. The subsection reflects the weight of coverage in a preponderance of WP:RS secondary sources discussing the event. Virtually all WP:RS secondary sources discussing the 2015 event give significant weight to this subject. — Cirt (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This info may belong in the clock incident article but it's covered in too much depth for an article on WH astronomy night (general.) Thanks. D.Creish (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It reflects the appropriate weight of coverage given in secondary sources that have as their headlines the White House Astronomy Night, itself. — Cirt (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Per our Wikipedia site policy at WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The article gives the amount of weight in proportion to the prominence of the coverage in published, reliable sources. The content sourced to secondary sources, therefore, should remain in the article. — Cirt (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Okay, I've made a good faith gesture as an attempt at compromise, and greatly trimmed down the size of material in that subsection. Please see DIFF. Hopefully this will be a satisfactory compromise. :) — Cirt (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed some more, at DIFF. Thank you, I actually think this version looks much better as it is tighter, more succinctly worded, and more concise. — Cirt (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The latest version comports with WP:WEIGHT. It's my hope that it will be stable.David in DC (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, agreed ! — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: @David in DC:Thanks again for providing what essentially amounts to an effective third opinion here — thanks to that, and your helpful copy-edits, this particular issue is now successfully resolved. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)