Jump to content

User:COeditor1/sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Seamus McGarvey Contributions: Found source on pickering's harem. This source also contains good info in some of his work at harvard
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Added section for things to add to the article. Fixed typo
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 24: Line 24:


=== Seamus McGarvey Contributions ===
=== Seamus McGarvey Contributions ===

=== Things to add/mention ===

* Pickering's Triangle: Not too important but its an astrological observance named after him.
* Must talk about the Harem, as Corey previously stated. Must also mention Williamina Fleming



=== Sources ===
=== Sources ===
Line 35: Line 41:
The article seems neutral to me. Many would likely argue that the article favors this piece as an important piece of technology, but I don't think it is biased. It is just stating the importance of the invention.
The article seems neutral to me. Many would likely argue that the article favors this piece as an important piece of technology, but I don't think it is biased. It is just stating the importance of the invention.
* Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
* Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
No, but n the construction tab, I think there should be a schematic with each piece of the astrolabe labeled added.
No, but in the construction tab, I think there should be a schematic with each piece of the astrolabe labeled added.
* Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
* Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
There are many notes, bibliographies, and links, but after browsing through most of them, they do work and seem to support the topic.
There are many notes, bibliographies, and links, but after browsing through most of them, they do work and seem to support the topic.

Revision as of 16:53, 16 October 2020

Article Additions for Edward Charles Pickering

Cory Oviatt Contributions:

Edward Charles Pickering Seamus and I chose this article to edit because it looks like it needs quite a bit of work and there are some important pieces of history left out.

I think that Pickering's Harem should be covered more thoroughly and there isn't much listed on his death, so these two things should be researched and added.

The article could probably use an entirely separate section for "Pickering's Harem".

I also plan to explore the reasons why Pickering chose to work with women instead of men. Was it predatory? Did he believe they were better at computing? The second source listed below has some info on this.

It is mentioned in the third source that Pickering was at MIT for 10 years, and even founded "the first physics laboratory in America specifically designed for student instruction and had encouraged his students to design experiments" (Plotkin, 44). This isn't even mentioned in the Wiki article, so it should be added as well.

Pickering's Harem

Death

Sources

David H. DeVorkin. “Community and Spectral Classification in Astrophysics: The Acceptance of E. C. Pickering's System in 1910.” Isis, vol. 72, no. 1, 1981, pp. 29–49. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/231176. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.

Rossiter, Margaret W. “‘Women's Work’ in Science, 1880-1910.” Isis, vol. 71, no. 3, 1980, pp. 381–398. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/230118. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.

Plotkin, Howard. “Edward C. Pickering and the Endowment of Scientific Research in America, 1877-1918.” Isis, vol. 69, no. 1, 1978, pp. 44–57. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/230607. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.

Seamus McGarvey Contributions

Things to add/mention

  • Pickering's Triangle: Not too important but its an astrological observance named after him.
  • Must talk about the Harem, as Corey previously stated. Must also mention Williamina Fleming


Sources

Geiling, Natasha. “The Women Who Mapped the Universe And Still Couldn’t Get Any Respect.” Smithsonian Magazine, 18 Sept. 2013, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-women-who-mapped-the-universe-and-still-couldnt-get-any-respect-9287444/.

Astrolabe Article Evaluation Questions & Answers

  • Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Yes, everything appears to be relevant. I wasn't distracted by anything in the article.

  • Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article seems neutral to me. Many would likely argue that the article favors this piece as an important piece of technology, but I don't think it is biased. It is just stating the importance of the invention.

  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, but in the construction tab, I think there should be a schematic with each piece of the astrolabe labeled added.

  • Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

There are many notes, bibliographies, and links, but after browsing through most of them, they do work and seem to support the topic.

  • Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

As far as I know, nothing has changed or is out of date. I am not enough of an expert on the subject to suggest that anything be added.

  • Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?