Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Earth's location in the universe/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by Crisco 1492 07:58, 13 May 2015 [1].

Earth's location in the universe

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Serendipodous 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been extensively cited and I think represents a comprehensive account of its subject. Serendipodous 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw

As a non astronomer I clicked on this nomination not really having and idea of what I would find (or how it could be a list) - which might be an issue about the title - but I think I've got the idea now. I found it interesting but have a few comments:

  • In the lead I found the sentence "The Earth is at the center of the observable universe because its observability is determined by its distance from Earth" confusing as a circular sentence or self fulfilling prophecy or something - but certainly didn't help my understanding.
  • This now includes ... Earth, Earth is,... some rewording may be possible.
  • On my screen the notes column is very wide and the size column runs to three or four lines for Geospace and Milky Way subgroup. I would narrow the notes column slightly.
  • Geospace - I'm not sure I totally understand the difference in size on the sunward and trailing sides - is there mileage in having a short explanation next to the note?
  • Orbit of the moon - how much does the diameter vary? - by "average" is this a mean median or mode?
  • Oort cloud - which version of trillion is this - or is it being used in the sense of "massive but we don't really know"?
  • Solar system appears twice in the Feature column with two different sizes given. I'm still trying to get me head around this.
  • Universe - "no reason to suppose different natural laws" sounds like an assumption to me - not one I'm prepared to challenge but it would be nice to give a reference for who the speculation is made by.
  • Ref 27 Eisenhauer... has a CS1 issue (CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al) which could be corrected by giving the detail of the other authors rather than et al.
The article has eight authors. Do you want to list them all? Serendipodous 17:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that in cite web, cite journal etc if you list them all ie first1=|last1=|first2=... then the template sorts out when to use et al etc. (that's what happened when I cited a pare with 10 authors).— Rod talk 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note b just says "Existence is hypothetical" which is just about where my thoughts were heading to at this point - perhaps a little more explanation would be useful.
  • I was surprised to see the Galaxy Song in the "see also" but it was what I was humming while reading this!— Rod talk 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to remove it? I can say I didn't put it there :-) Serendipodous 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also should the Multiverse be included? I'd love to see the size calculation.— Rod talk 14:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bulleted points resolved; as for multiverse, well not everyone agrees with the multiverse hypothesis, or what form it would take, or how large it would ultimately be, or even if a concept like size even applies to it, so I really can't say. Serendipodous 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Multiverse could be mentioned in the notes for the 'Universe' row rather than having a line of its own. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've struck some comments which I think are now resolved. A few more:
  • Refs 13 & 15 appear to be to the same thing so could be "named and reused".
They're actually different pages; just needed better wording.
  • Should refs 22 & 26 "Mark Anderson" & Harold Spencer Jones have years of publication?
Mark Anderson does have a year of publication. Jones and Huxley will need some doing.
Jones and Huxley doesn't appear to have a title either.— Rod talk 17:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 25, 36 & 38 appear to be deadlinks
Fixed.
  • Some dates in the references are in d/m/y format others are eg 2009-10-02 which could be standardised.— Rod talk 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
I ran a script which did the rest.— Rod talk 17:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to comment on whether the sources are RS.— Rod talk 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The web cite of Local Chimney and Superbubbles should have an accessdate.— Rod talk 17:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Peel

This is a rather unusual list! Here's some comments/suggestions from me. I am a professional astronomer, but this topic doesn't really fall under my research area.

  • On the table formatting: the header "Earth in the Universe" probably isn't needed. It might be better to give the notes either in the lead (for the distance measures) or under the 'Notes' column (for the Oort cloud)
  • The diagram might be better if it were vertical down the side of the article rather than horizontal across it. Alternatively, small images could be added at the start of each row instead. That would avoid breaking the flow of the page with a large image.
  • The sizes could be given more precisely in some cases (e.g. diameter of the earth); in all cases they should give uncertainties.
Well, most of the distances are so uncertain that they don't really have uncertainties. Serendipodous 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that: they may have very large uncertainties, but they should still have uncertainties. Scientific statements/results always quote uncertainties. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be simpler to jump from AU to parsecs directly rather than using light-years, since distances within our Galaxy are typically referred to in parsecs (see the cited academic references). It might be better to set a standard definition of what you mean by 'size' rather than repeatedly saying 'across' (which I think effectively means 'diameter, assuming it's spherical'?)
  • "Residence of humanity." seems a bit human-centric: why not refer to life instead?
We know humans are only here; we don't know if life is only here. Serendipodous 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that we don't know if life is only here, but I'm not sure we know that humans are only here. Or maybe I've watched too many SciFi shows. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the various layers of the Earth's atmosphere be included; in particular, would it be worth mentioning the Kármán line?
The atmosphere is part of the Earth. Serendipodous 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Perhaps consider expanding the row entry in the note column to also talk about the atmosphere? Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that the Solar System extends to 4 light-years seems a bit odd: it would be better to refer to a Sphere of influence (astrodynamics) for the sun/combined mass of the solar system instead.
  • "Milky Way subgroup" - the "orbital diameter of the Leo T Dwarf galaxy" doesn't seem to be suitably referenced. The linked paper only seems to talk about Leo T being 420kpc distant from us.
  • The cosmic microwave background should be mentioned as the furthest light we can see in our universe. There's also the CMB dipole which tells us about the Earth's velocity relative to the CMB, although it is difficult to separate out the dipole due to our velocity and the cosmological dipole.
  • With the references: I'm not sure how reliable [2] is. [3] is a broken link. Also, Carnegie Institution for Science could be linked to (and ditto with other publishers). [4] is somewhat reliable, although I'd recommend backing it up with a second reference.
[2] is working for me. Serendipodous 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify: the link loads a webpage, but it's not the same webpage that's indicated by the URL or reference. Rather than being a page answering this specific question, the link points to a welcome page for the "ask an astrophysicist" website. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have more comments, but that's probably enough for now! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking some of my comments above into account. I think the list is looking better! Some additional suggestions:
  • It might be better to reference the sources in-line rather than having a second column, particularly where there are several entries in the 'notes' column as well as the distance. This would make it easier to verify the information.
  • "Atmospheric hydrogen atoms have been detected as far as 100,000 km from Earth's surface." - hydrogen atoms are hydrogen atoms, I don't think you can tell whether they're atmospheric or not at that kind of distance. It would be better to talk about the Scale height instead.
  • If km and AU are abbreviated, "parsecs" could also be abbreviated as "pc", and "megaparsecs" as "Mpc"
  • It's really important to quote uncertainties on the distances here. Without them, this list doesn't pass muster for me.
I'll make some more minor edits to the article directly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a really neat list that I like very much. Here are some pointers:

  • link parsec in intro
  • the table really needs a section title. I am not sure what is the equivalent term for timescale or timeline but for space/length
  • what are "trailing side" and Sunward side?
  • how about Earth's gravitational well? i.e. the location of the important Lagrangian points
  • maybe mention Sun's magnetic sphere? Helioshealth or something like that
  • mention how far is Voyager 2 (the farthest humans have sent physical objects)
  • mention somewhere the distance to the next closest star and galaxy;
  • also mention in the note how far is Andromeda
  • the distance scale is going to be confusing to non-experts. Perhaps move the table footnotes into a separate section? Maybe give out the time light takes to travel each unit?
  • it would be nice if the left image would match better the table's separation points.
  • this might sound weird, but about how much is Earth's neighborhood corresponding to the IUA's definition of planet?
  • Mention the 100 km boundary defined as the limit between "atmosphere" and "space" as seen by an actual respectable organization.

Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I may have to withdraw this; I severely underestimated what it would require. Still, Thanks for guiding me on to what is required. Serendipodous 18:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I have too much other work to do. Serendipodous 07:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Earth%27s_location_in_the_universe/archive1&oldid=1047326700"