Talk:Barnard's Star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barnard's Star is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Barnard's Star has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 In fiction 2 Adding External Link 3 ref 4 Discovery? 5 GA review 6 Picture! 7 New Image 8 Notes

[edit] In fiction

Barnard's star is mentioned in several science fiction stories (Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos comes to mind, but I can't remember the name of its planet). Please create a list of those stories on the article, if you remember any.--Jyril 12:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding External Link

I have been imaging this star since 1997 and displaying the change of position every year.

The last time I added a link to an article I got spanked. Would someone please look at my web page to see if it is appropriate to add as an external link.

Link is: http://schmidling.com/barnard.htm

It also occurs to me that it would be useful to add a picture to the article as there are none and mine seem to be the only ones out there since the 50's. I am thinking of the color one from 2003 resized to fit neatly on the right.

Thanks, Jack Schmidling 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jack. Regarding your site:

• Are you selling anything?

Site is a big word. Most of my pages are for public information but a few describe products we sell.

Don't seem to be, but I see the link to the brewery.

That page is supposed to be a joke.

• Are you advancing or attempting to debut research of your own? Again, doesn't seem so.
• Is it verifiable info? This is tricky. On the hand you can log in and tell everyone it is, but as it isn't attached to school, journal, etc. I don't think it qualifies.

Roger.

So I would say so no, but don't take it badly as the same would be true of any personal website. See here for more.

Re the picture idea, some of the links here do in fact have them, but your 2003 pic is indeed very excellent. If you're willing to release it under the GFDL you can upload and post in. You can use {{PD-self}} to tag it for copyright status. Note that it ceases to be "yours" at that point and is free for anyone to subsequently use without necessarily crediting it. Hope that helps. Marskell 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

After posting this I stumbled on the picture info and realized it was an inappropriate question.

I don't mind giving it to Wikipedia for the world to look at but this photo has been purchased by dozens of authors using it in for-profit pubs so I would not be inclined to give it away under those circumstances.

Thanks for your help,

Jack Schmidling 04:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the brewery seemed tongue-in-cheek ;). Marskell 10:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ref

George D. Gatewood (1995). "A study of the astrometric motion of Barnard's star". Journal Astrophysics and Space Science 223: 91-98. DOI:10.1007/BF00989158. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stone (talk • contribs).

Thanks Stone. There appear to be three 80s, 90s refutations of planets. Harrington, "Status Report on an Intriguing Neighbor" (1987) for which I can't view an abstract, the one you provide from 1995, and the 1999 Hubble piece now in the article which confirms 1995.

With the van de Kamp story covered, I would also like to add a more general "Research" section. However, I'm an amateur and would appreciate any help with the hard science. I would like to note, for instance, to what mass and orbital values the null hypothesis on planets has been refined, and values under which planets are still possible. Marskell 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery?

This page says Barnard "discovered the proper motion" in 1916. Some sources say he discovered it, but 1916 seems a bit late to discover a ninth-magnitude star. Do we have any information on the discovery? Shimgray | talk | 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You can view his paper: "I have found in my photographs a small star..."[1]. I thought it late too, but 1916 it appears to be. In fact, the sentence should read "The star and its large proper motion were discoverd..." Marskell 08:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

• 1. Well-written: A few errors in one section, but very minor. I quickly fixed them. Otherwise, clear and interesting to read.
• 2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Excellent cites! Facts seem accurate.
• 3. Broad in coverage: Reasonably so. The Sci-fi usage that was spun off could be better linked.
• 4. NPOV: Didn't notice any opinions.
• 5. Stability: Reasonable.

Verdict: Pass! Congrats! Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adam for your friendly post and for taking the time to make edits yourself. However, I have removed the GA tag, for a couple of reasons. While I'd immodestly say that additions over the past two weeks are very good (it's a ref per k at the moment) the article as a whole only has 50 - 60% of the info needed. A research section, distinct from the planet controversy, is the obvious absence. Aside from this, I believe GA is a poorly defined process and I think the tag accomplishes little, particularly for an article which is being actively worked on. This article is about mid-way through a two to four week push to get it to FA standard (at least that's what I hope for); judging it now doesn't achieve much. If I am violating a policy by removing the tag, tell me so. Cheers, Marskell 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree rather strongly (as the person who nominated this article for GA status). All articles in wikipedia are (are should) be actively worked on so that distinction is, IMO, meaningless. Unless you think the article doesn't meet the GA criteria, I would request that you alow the tag to remain for the benefit of those who do consider it of value. Eluchil404 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To reply specifically to "actively worked on", I have been told in various ways GA is an assessment rather than improvement drive. I meant that it makes little sense to assess an article when, for instance, a k/day is still being added. Marskell 07:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the GA was awarded and not being contested, this is GA whether it has the tag or not, IMO. Restore the tag freely. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't do any harm to add it, if it bothers you—though as I say, I'd like to see a line of policy that says other contributors are not free to remove it.

As I've said elsewhere, given that the GA criteria are essentially identical to the FA criteria, by the time this is a GA it might as well as go to FAC. But no, this doen't meet the criteria. There is still too much absent. Marskell 04:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Weel, it was requested on the GA page, so... Of course, I'm not an astronomer, so I might have missed some of the needed breadth, of course. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an astronomer either! In fact, I'd like a couple astronomers to look at how I'm incorporating stats. I just don't know that it means anything worthwhile to say "good article" at this point. But I don't want to denigrate your effort looking at it. If you happen to know any astronomers, tell them to check it out ;). Marskell 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture!

I found some pictures on NASA's website. I have found this quote.

NASA still images, audio files and video generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.

I think it says I can use them! I will upload them, then put them on the site. Is that ok? If not, lemme know!-- ¢² Connor K.   23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Connor, I sent an e-mail to NASA this very day and suggest we wait. I don't believe their "generally not copyrighted" note should be used to upload anything with NASA in the address bar. The NASA site is massive, linking to many .edu type places, where the assumption of public domain does not seem right.

That said, I want pics as much as anybody! This page is great...the lack of pics is the only glaring absence. Marskell 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR REPLYING. I was so close to biting the bullet and uploading it. I even went as far as to call them, only to get a voice-mail. I will try again tomorrow (on the phone), and if get through to someone, I will try to get them to verify that it is not copy-righted. Thanks for letting me know!-- ¢² Connor K.   00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I emailed them. They said it was fine to use in the article, I am going to upload it.-- ¢² Connor K.   18:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Image

I think the new one I uploaded is better, feel free to revert if it is not.-- ¢² Connor K.   22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

I think here's something wrong with the notes & references. Click the "1" after the "Barnard's Star" text above the first picture. This will revert you to the text: "SIMBAD is used for observation data, while ARICNS is used for astrometry. More specific numbers from research papers may be employed, but will also be mentioned in the body." This appears to have nothing to do with the simple text "Barnard's Star." Scholarus 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The note refers to all of the data in the star table. Maybe this is confusing because it's not actually inside the box but above it... Marskell 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)