Talk:Bad Astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Science (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Fair use rationale for Image:Babook front.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Babook front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New image file uploaded and used in info box with appropriate fair useMrBill3 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles and Reviews to use to improve article[edit]

This article from Discover Magazine is behind a paywall so I can't read it perhaps a copy is available from a library website or from Phil or the author of the article.[1]

Nice long review has loads of great stuff, someone read it and use it to improve the article dramatically [2]

Article in Savannah Morning News[3]

UniSci review/article[4]

Product review from National Science Teachers Association [5]

Review in New Scientist also behind paywall.[6]

This is Phil's rebuttal to a bad review, unfortunately the link to the bad review is dead (damn link rot)[7] Note that most of these have been inserted as references on the lead of the article, for ease of editing I have put them in WP markup for references.

  1. ^ Berman, Bob (Jun 2002), Sky Lights: Why are media science stories still crazy after all these years?, Discover Magazine (Kalmbach Publishing Co.) 23 (6): 32 
  2. ^ Guldvog, Tormod (19 May 2002), Bad Astronomy Finally Hits The Shelves, Hypography 
  3. ^ The fault lies not in the stars..., Savannah Morning News (Savannah, GA), "Heaven knows we don't know the heavens." 
  4. ^ Radler, Don, ed. (2 Apr 2002), Book Sets The Record Straight On Astronomical Myths, UniSci (Cape Coral, FL: UniScience Newsnet, Inc.) 
  5. ^ Teuscher, Deborah (4 Jun 2002), NSTA Recommends (product review), Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, "Bad Astronomy is “bad”—in the best way!" 
  6. ^ Muir, Hazel (4 May 2002), Get it right., New Scientist (London, England: Reed Business Information Ltd) (2341), ISSN 0262-4079, OCLC 2378350 
  7. ^ Plait, Phil (7 Apr 2002). "Rebuttal to a Bad Book Review". Bad Astronomy. 

MrBill3 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My review 'copy' ... Tormod Guldvog writes in his review that "It is indeed a gem when it comes to teaching things about common astronomical phenomena. Plait discusses common ways bad astronomy is communicated, in the media, in the classroom, and perhaps, most of all, in our own minds."<put ref here> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap020570 (talkcontribs) 14:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Science?[edit]

Is there a reason that this article would be tagged as being part of WikiProject Science rather than as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy? KConWiki (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)