Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review

Astronomy Project‑class

	Astronomy portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Example request[edit]

Comment: Great work on setting up this page, but 'dense atmosphere'? We don't even know if the planet has an atmosphere at all, let alone a dense one. Just thought I'd mention it... Cop 633 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this wasn't clear but, I meant this as an example, and so just grabbed some arbitrary bits from the Gliese discussion. I forget who thought it was likely to be a super-Venus, but.. pretty sure it was some one. That said - I'm hoping some experts will come along , replace this one and get some real informed requests up here. Just so everyone knows - I'm a biologist with graphics skills, rather than an astronomer, so I shouldn't be making the requests :-) Debivort 03:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would be good to keep the request / review page clear of comments, so I've moved your comment and my reply here. Hope that's OK. Debivort 03:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, sorry about that! :) Cop 633 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I should have been clearer in my above preference: I'd suggest the review page stay clear of procedural/meta-comments. Comments about the images are exactly what we want! Debivort 03:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important Question[edit]

How do I offically join the project? Fusion7 00:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dunno - consider yourself a member! Do you have a request in mind, or would you like to illustrate a request? I am an illustrator and hope we get some requests soon.. Debivort 01:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern[edit]

My concern about this project is that drawing unseen extrasolar planets is just a lot more speculative than drawing dinosaurs species we have fossils for. Imagine trying to reconstruct T. Rex based with no more knowledge than that it weighed 7.5 tons. And, even with all of the knowledge we have about T. Rex, our user-created image looks like this. While I can appreciate the efforts that go into elaborately rendered surfaces, I wonder if as an encyclopedia we might be better served with a more intellectually modest, schematic style.--Pharos 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your perspective. I'd suggest requesting or making images with your ascetic guidelines enumerated, but I think the image review page is a fine place to do that too. By the way, I think a more appropriate anology would be drawing T-rex with the information that it weighed 7.5tons (mass), was a therapod (i.e. a jupiter), and was 12 meters long (orbital radius). That said, details would be speculative. Also, this is what a wikipedian's illustration looks like of an otherwise unillustrated therapod. Debivort 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Images[edit]

Noticed somebody cleared the oldest review. According to the analogy with WP:DINO, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review/Approved Images and linked to it from its parent page. Glycerinester 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the dino approved image page went stagnant when we realized it was simpler just to archive away the review page. Debivort 09:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. All I know is this edit seemed to call for some sort of preservative action.

What do you think we should do? Glycerinester 09:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion, the approved page could work just fine, it will just require a bit more upkeep. The archiving done to the dino page generally means it gets very long at the end of the month, and short at the beginning of the next. Debivort 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. By the way, I said in my edit summery that I removed the oldest request. I had posted the image up, and it was taking up a bit of room. Sorry if I wasn't supposed to. Fusion7 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Clusters HRD image has mislabeled axis[edit]

The image file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Open_cluster_HR_diagram_ages.gif has an embarrassing error in it, which I sheepishly admit I didn't notice until today. The vertical axis is correctly labeled "absolute magnitude", but the arrow indicating direction of increase points upward, which is the wrong way. That arrow should point downward. Larger numerical values of absolute magnitude indicate fainter stars, which go toward the bottom of the diagram. The creator of the figure has retired from Wikipedia, so it's unlikely we can prevail upon him to fix it, and I have never done even trivial graphics editing. This is an important figure and is used in several articles; could someone make the fix and replace the errant version? BSVulturis (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

image category[edit]

Hi. Image : File:6furcation.gif hase been categorised as a Animations of astronomy. I have made this image and I do not know any raltion of this image with astronomy, but maybe I'm wrong. I have asked the author of the cotribution ( = adding category ) but there is no response. Can anybody tell me is it any relation of this image with astronomy ? TIA --Adam majewski (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Access for AAS Journals[edit]

I recently noticed that the journals of the American Astronomical Society have created a "Gold Open Access" option that allows authors to have work published with a CC-BY license [1]. I believe that this would mean that images from these articles could be added to Wikimedia Commons or used on Wikipedia. As someone who has had to search for images with acceptable licenses, I think that this may be useful for some of the articles in the Astronomy WikiProject. OtterAM (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]