Talk:Hexapod-Telescope
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Revolution
[edit]Sorry, but it'll have to take place without me. Unfree (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ratio
[edit]"the ratio of bearing pressure and its own weight is very high"
I suspect "and" should be "to", but isn't that backwards, considering it seems to be cited as an advantage? Why maximize the bearing pressure? Unfree (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Advertisement, footnotes, and further reading
[edit]I can't help feeling like the current text is written as an advertisement, so I've tagged it as such. I think just a little rewriting would help. I have also added the format footnotes tag because of all the external links, which should either be footnotes ; see WP:ECITE. I renamed the Literature section to Further reading, per WP:FURTHER. Those references should also be cleaned up, and I would love to see some sort of links to those articles, such as by DOI.
Should the article title be "Hexapod Telescope", without the hyphen? -- WakingLili (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the article reads very much like an advertisement. I took out the word "revolutionary" as that's debatable and remains to be seen. I stripped out the inline external links, linking to wikipedia pages where they existed and moving them down to external links where the wikipedia page didn't. I also changed it to new type of telescope mounting as nothing in the article indicates that the actual telescopes are "revolutionarily" different from their forebearers. Sxoa (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)