Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review

	Astronomy Project‑class
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.

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...

• 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]

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]

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]

Noticed somebody cleared the oldest review. According to the analogy with

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]

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]

Hi. Image :