Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Lobster-eye optics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Lobster-eye optics

(
)
Close-up view of crustacean's eyes
Close-up view of crustacean's eyes

Created by Artem.G (talk). Self-nominated at 12:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lobster-eye optics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Comment: Grammar issues in article; copyedits needed. Also, history section doesn't mention Kaaret & Geissbuehler 1992, but that has no bearing on DYK. ALT0 is redundant to me. In English, saying "lobster-eye optics" implies that it "mimic[s] the structure of lobsters' eyes". So why not just say ... that lobster-eye optics will be used in several planned X-ray space telescopes? Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Hey, thanks for the review! Kaaret & Geissbuehler added. I've copyedited the article a bit, but would be grateful if you'll list the issues you see. And you're right, the hook can be trimmed, thanks! Artem.G (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • It was proposed in 1979, and first used in the Chinese technology demonstrator spacecraft Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy Do people really use the full term "technology demonstrator"? This sounds like a Wikipedia term. I've only heard "tech demo" and "prototype", but it may just be the case that this is a new term for me. I've never seen it used in reference to a new telescope. Don't they usually just call it a prototype telescope, or is there a major difference with a "technology demonstrator" spacecraft? Something about the full term doesn't sound right to me. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
One of the sources say "SATech-01 is an exploration satellite aimed at test and demonstration of the new technologies", I think that 'technology demonstrator' is the same thing but shorter. Artem.G (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps to you, but I'm not seeing any currency for that usage. I would suggest going with what most sources use and not choosing new and unusual terms. "Technology demonstrator" reads very odd to me, and I don't recall ever seeing it in the literature like this. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, I disagree - it's a common term. See for example [1] A technology demonstrator for development of ultra-lightweight, large aperture, deployable telescope for space applications, ESA The camera has been designed as a technology demonstrator, or [2] The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Coronagraph Instrument is a critical technology demonstrator for NASA's Habitable Worlds Observatory.. Artem.G (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
TIL. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • First major space telescope that uses lobster-eye optics is Chinese Einstein Probe, launched in 2024. That sentence is too informal and needs to be cleaned up. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand that. What's informal here that should be changed? EP is the first space telescope with LE Thag is not a prototype, so the sentence is correct. Artem.G (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
It reads like broken English to me, or informal discourse. If I was to formalize it for Wikipedia, I might write "The Chinese Einstein Probe is the first major space telescope to use lobster-eye optics." Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, will use it! Artem.G (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Lobster-eye optics mimic the structure of the crustacean's (lobster's) eyes, that are made up of long, narrow cells that each reflect a tiny amount of light from a given direction This should be rewritten. Maybe something like: "The eyes of a crustacean are made up of long, narrow cells that each reflect a tiny amount of light from a given direction. Lobster-eye optics technology mimic this structure..." Viriditas (talk)
  • Done as you've proposed, thanks. Artem.G (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • idealized LE optic is almost free from vignetting except near the edge of the FoV Do you mean field of view? You'll need to spell things out for the general reader. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G: That's just to start, but there's a lot more. I can try to take a closer look later, but I would really recommend getting an editor who specializes in copy editing to also take a look. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, will try GOCE. Artem.G (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Query: why is the picture one of a shrimp's eyes when the article is about the optics of lobster's eyes? This doesn't seem to be an appropriate picture to run for this DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
      • It's called "lobster-eye", but any crustacean eye works for the illustration. I've added "crustacean" to the article. Artem.G (talk)
  • I agree, but you may want to construct a footnote in the article explaining this anatomical similarity. People will easily get confused and this will just come up again. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Several space telescopes that use lobster-eye optics are under construction. Joint French-Chinese SVOM is expected to be launched in July 2024. SMILE, a space telescope project by ESA and the CAS, is planned to be launched in 2025. ESA's THESEUS is now under consideration. This is all unsourced. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding sources. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Just had another user check this out. This nomination meets and exceeds the requirements. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Hey, I missed the reply somehow, sorry for that. I didn't know about this rule, but the text I've copied from LEIA was added there by me just a few days before. Anyway, I wouldn't object if you'll fail this nomination. If not, I'll try to address all remaining comments in the next few days. Artem.G (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not failing this nomination. I said it meets and exceeds the criteria. I had to be sure, so I asked for additional input. There are a lot of rules and it's difficult to be mindful of them at all times, so I will often ask for help. Also, I very much want to see that cool image of crustacean eyes on the main page, so please, let's fix this article and get it ready. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Nice, thanks! I've very little time this week, but I've copyedited the article a bit, and removed ambiguity about the photo (or so I hope). Artem.G (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G: I know you are busy, but I made some copyedits you should review.[4] I also think the large blockquote in the history section should either be paraphrased by you or cut down to its most important part. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That looks good. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit, everything looks good! I never saw 'biomimetics' used for LE before, but I found several articles that uses it. Artem.G (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The term and its synonyms are quite common in the literature and appear in most of your sources. For example, Hudec & Feldman 2022: "Crustaceans eyes such as lobsters, shrimps and crayfish, provide an excellent oppor-tunity for biomimicking and creating novel X-ray optics." Biomimetics is biomimicry. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G:, do you have access to the 2018 book Remote and Robotic Investigations of the Solar System by Christopher R. Kitchin?[5] You can find copies online or in your local library. I think this source would resolve 99% of any outstanding issues as it explains the entire concept in easy to understand, everyday language and compares it to other similar technology, giving it proper context and coverage. This would greatly help our readers understand the subject. I think if you were to use this source to revise what you currently have, we could probably wrap this up and pass the hook. Please take a look when you have time. Viriditas (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thanks, will look into it tomorrow! Artem.G (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G: It's mostly on pp. 122-123, but there's a bit more on p. 128 regarding honeycomb collimaters. The content is fairly small, so I could email it to you, but the book itself does have some nice diagrams and graphics. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
hey, I've added a bit, please take a look. Artem.G (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Aside from copyediting, I don't think there's anything left to do at this point. Sometimes it's a good idea to have more than one hook available if another reviewer or promoter finds something wrong, but it's not necessary or required. I will try to wrap this up. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G: Copyedits needed to lead. You forgot to sync the new edits with the old ones. Lead currently says first was Chinese instead of US. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Updated, though LEIA is still important, and NASA's experiment was on sub-orbital rocket.Artem.G (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Lobster-eye optics can be used for backscattering imaging and is used for homeland security, detection of improvised explosive devices, non-destructive testing, and medical imaging

What about writing it this way instead: "Lobster-eye optics can be used for backscattering imaging in homeland security, the detection of improvised explosive devices, non-destructive testing, and medical imaging." Also, this seems out of place considering we are talking about space science applications. Is there a better place to put it or way to incorporate it into the article? You use it to start the section but then launch into space technology demonstrators. Is it even needed? Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removal, at least from this section, as it is out of place. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I see large parts of the "Description" section were copied from statements made by Goddard PI Jordan Camp in a 2017 NASA article by Madison Arnold, presumably in the public domain. While it may be perfectly acceptable to copy large swaths of content from free sources into Wikipedia, in practice it needs to be done carefully, with attribution, and in a way that makes the content accessible to our readers. In this case, the description is specifically out of context, as it is discussing the X-ray Wide-Field Imager (WFI), it is quoting Camp with no attribution, and it has not been altered to fit the general topic. This is why it is always best to paraphrase, even when you are presented with free content to use, and to mindfully tailor the content to the topic at hand. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Viriditas asked me to take a look at the page, and I'm going to give it a copyedit that I think will help. Seeing the comment just above, however, I want to say that I'm probably not going to check for close paraphrasing, but that all close paraphrasing must have been completely removed before this DYK can be passed.
I also think that the hook should be run without the image of the mantis shrimp eyes. The image does not do much to help the reader understand the telescope mechanisms, and the confusion noted above, that a mantis shrimp is not a lobster, would make for confusion on the main page. (I have no problem with keeping the image at the article.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources suggests that the current use of the content is acceptable, but from an editorial POV, it may need to be cleaned up for other reasons. In other words, close paraphrasing in this particular example is allowed, but it's not something I'm used to dealing with so it's a bit confusing for me. Relevant passage: "A public domain source may be summarized and cited in the same manner as for copyrighted material, but the source's text can also be copied verbatim into a Wikipedia article. If text is copied or closely paraphrased from a free source, it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details)." My initial concern was that the passage used is so far removed from its initial context that there could be some errors involved. That's one of the reasons I wanted an astronomer (or a neuroscientist!) to review it. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd have to do some digging to link to it (and don't feel like doing that), but there have been major scandals in the past about copyvios and overly close paraphrasing in DYK pages, and there is a very strong sense in the community that we don't want anything of that sort appearing on the Main Page. For me, at least, the minimum policy requirements for PD sources is too low a bar. I think a simple way to deal with it is to Google passages from the page, and look at hits that aren't WP mirrors. (I always do that when doing DYK reviews, myself.) Of course, if you have any of the cited sources in hand, you can compare that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
For me, at least, the minimum policy requirements for PD sources is too low a bar. I completely agree, and that's my position as well, but as far as I understand it, the current version is policy compliant, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. As for the example you requested, take a look at this source. That's where some of the content from the "Description" section comes from. As you can see, it might be accurate, and it might be relevant, but it's completely out of context of the original source. I'm not sure if I'm just being too critical and nitpicky or if this needs to be cleaned up. As I said before, this is not how I write or edit articles, so I'm not familiar with the practice of copying free content like this. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
If you can list any other sources like that, as well, I'll try to clean all of them up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe it is limited to just three sources, numbered in the reference section itself as citation 1 (Ma et al. 2023), 3 (NASA 2017), and 4 (Zhang et al. 2022). You can tell because each citation says "Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0" or "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I've now completed a reasonably careful copyedit of the page, and I feel comfortable supporting it for promotion. I think it's acceptably readable for the subject matter, and it's a very interesting and encyclopedic page. I've also checked it for the paraphrasing issues. I found, and corrected, some overly close copying from the public domain NASA source. I also ran the page through the Earwig tool, to check if I had missed anything, and it passed decisively. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Same as ALT0, but without the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: Thank you, but I think we can still salvage a top-placed image. Astrophysicist Jordan B. Camp at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center has a relevant image we can use. Because the entire image is composed of three separate images and too long horizontally to use in its original form, I will just cut it up into two images and stack the two on top of one in a square-shape. This will be perfect for use here as it indeed shows a close up view of the eyes of a lobster along with the microchannel plate in comparison. I think its perfect, and I've seen similar images used on DYK before. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded five images here. I'm not that keen on how they turned out. If anyone wants to use them here, you know where to find them. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, nice images! Artem.G (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Note, the Mercury Imaging X-ray Spectrometer (MIXS) currently on board BepiColombo (launched 2018) apparently uses similar microchannel geometry.[6][7] Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! It's seems to be almost the same, similar to that of the so-called "lobster eye" telescope, except that the channel lengths are chosen to maximise the energy-independent "straight through" component of the flux, rather than the low energy focused component, but I'll update it. Artem.G (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I was hoping we could use an image per the nom's wishes, but after looking into this, and even uploading new images, I don't see any that are truly conducive to the hook at the moment; the main problem was that several different editors expressed concerns about the mantis image and it did lead to unnecessary confusion. Per the above discussion, article is new and long enough, well-sourced, neutral, and copyvio free (although it incorporates public domain content per the nom). The article is presentable, and the QPQ is complete. As far as WP:DYKHOOKCITE goes, it is unfortunate, but there is no single, cited hook in the article that supports the idea "that lobster-eye optics will be used in several planned X-ray space telescopes". Yes, it is a true statement based on many different sources collected by the nominator, but the way DYK generally works is spelled out in WP:DYKG: "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change, and citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook and be reliable. The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information – if the source is not willing to the say the fact in its own voice, the hook should attribute back to the original source as well." With that said, I just spent ten minutes looking for sources that could support this hook. I could not find any. The closest source I could find to supporting this hook is this one, but it's incredibly ambiguous and isn't good enough. We need a solid hook, firmly backed by at least a single source, that is unambiguous and reliable. Since Tryptofish has shown interest in this topic, perhaps they could offer some ideas for new hooks. I notice that there's no information about the role played by the French company Photonis and researchers at the University of Leicester in bringing this technology to fruition. That could make a good hook. More information here and here. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  • ALT2: ... that lenses for telescopes are being designed using optics inspired by lobster eyes?
I think that's well-sourced on the page, because it's about the lens design instead of about future space missions. And I think it's hook-y. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: Thanks. While it is true that in general, telescope lenses are designed using optics based on lobster eye geometry, how about composing a hook that gets into the meat and potatoes of the article, describing 1) what makes the eyes of lobsters special (reflective eyes) and 2) how it was emulated, designed, and applied to X-ray optics technology for the purpose of capturing transient astronomical events? And, try to write that in only 70-160 characters. To me, that captures the heart of this subject while conveying the essential information to our readers. Are you up for writing an awe-inspiring ALT3, or do you think we should settle on ALT2? Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I was about to reply ALT2, but if we're willing to settle for not-quite awe-inspiring, then:
  • ALT3: ... that lenses for telescopes are being designed using optics inspired by the reflective properties of lobster eyes?
If you like that addition, OK, but I could also make a case for ALT2, because it leaves the reader with more reasons to click-through. I'm fine with either 2 or 3. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
It would help ALT2 and ALT3 to eliminate passive voice. The general sense of "lenses for telescopes" skips and misses out on the entire focus on X-ray optics and the search for transients, which is what the lobster eye design makes possible, but I suppose I will have to live with that. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that optics intended for X-ray telescopes are inspired by the reflective properties of lobster eyes?
If you want to get transients in there too, I'll leave that to you. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I can't propose and review a hook. In terms of the above, isn't it much easier and to the point to just say "that X-ray space telescopes use optics inspired by the reflective properties of lobster eyes?" Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I had two reasons for doing it that way. First, I felt it necessary to say "intended for" because of your concern that we don't have enough sourcing for "will be used in", in ALT0. Second, I put the link to the nominated page at the beginning, because of your concern (that we discussed elsewhere) that you don't want a blue link to precede the link to the nominated page (although I suppose we could just not link to X-ray telescopes – but it does seem to me to be something that needs to be linked). In any case, my opinion is that this is DYK not FA, and it's time to declare victory and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
"But my list of concerns is much longer!" Viriditas reaches into his vest and pulls out a long elfin scroll, the kind of scroll you might find in Santa's workshop, which promptly unfurls and rolls across the floor, making a series of paper-like rustling sounds, until the scroll finishes unfolding, clear across the room. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Illustration of the 12 lobster-eye optics sensor modules on the Einstein Probe
  • ALT5: .. that the Einstein Probe is the first major space telescope to use lobster-eye optics, which will help locate the source of gravitational waves? Source: Arasa, Dale (December 24, 2023). "China will launch first-ever 'lobster eye’ telescope'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Quote: "China will launch the world’s first lobster eye telescope to detect and study X-ray sources. As a result, it could help us learn more about gravity, one of the fundamental universal forces"; European Space Agency (January 9, 2024). "Einstein Probe lifts off on a mission to monitor the X-ray sky". Quote: "Thanks to its uniquely wide gaze, we will be able to catch the X-ray light from collisions between neutron stars and find out what is causing some of the gravitational waves we detect on Earth. Often, when these elusive space-time ripples are registered, we cannot locate where they are coming from. By promptly spotting the burst of X-rays, we will pinpoint the origin of many gravitational wave events."
The only problem with that hook and photo is that it's boring, but that's just my opinion. And now the focus is shifted from the optics design to the space telescope. That's probably fine though, as I don't have either time or energy to debate it. ALT4 is probably closest to the original one. Artem.G (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: This is actually the first! New reviewer needed. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@ Whoever will be the new reviewer (I've been involved in revising the page and proposing hooks, so I won't be me): I feel more favorably about the nomination than Viriditas did, and I'd be fine with either ALT2, ALT3, or ALT4. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  • New enough (at time of nomination), easily long enough, with adequate prose. Thoroughly footnoted. QPQ done. I note the discussion of copied prose above; Earwig still found a few copied phrases from the "cosmic ripples" NASA source, longer than I would accept from a copyrighted source, but because the source is PD and credited I think they are non-problematic. I like ALT2, but I'm having some trouble finding a clear sourced statement that lobster-eye optics are actually "inspired by lobster eyes". The lead says "based on the structure of the eyes of a lobster" but with no source, and the body of the article discusses the resemblance of the structure to the eyes of a lobster but does not state that this resemblance was the original inspiration for the structure. Can you point me to where in the article I can find the hook sourced, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Source 1 (Ma, et al.) [8]: "Lobster-eye optics is inspired by the structure of macruran crustaceans's eyes."
Source 4 (Zhang et al.) [9]: "Angel (1979) first proposed a design of X-ray ASM based on the imaging optics of the reflective eyes of lobsters."
--Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but it needs to be a sourced statement in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
[10]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, that was the only remaining issue for me. New article text for hook claim and its sources verified. Good to go with ALT2 (or ALT3 or ALT4, but I prefer ALT2). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lobster-eye_optics&oldid=1210855783"