Talk:Griffith Observatory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Southern California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] How can we improve this article?

All the basic information seems to be in the article. What do we need to do to make it better? ^BlankVerse 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just keep an eye on Science-advocate to prevent his posting misinformation and another rant. BTW...his last edit states that animators worked almost 3 years on the current show. The actual number is 27 months. The original "more than two years" was correct, but I risk locking the article to editing if I fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donmarkdixon (talk • contribs).

Do you have any way that we can independently varify the time frame?

If you discuss your concerns and provide reasons for your edits (and if you don't violate the Wikipedia's Three revert rule) there should be no problems with the article being locked (or you getting temporarily blocked from editing). ^BlankVerse 13:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I directed the show. The City of Los Angeles approval to hire the vfx supervisor in July, 2004 is online here: [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donmarkdixon (talk • contribs).

Changed "critical review of Centered in the Universe" back to "Review of Centered in the Universe" to avoid redundancy. Reviews are by definition critical, and Science Advocator's attempted spin is dishonest, as the review is generally positive.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donmarkdixon (talk • contribs).

Something needs to be put into the article about the new use of “show presenters”, instead of the traditional planetarium lecturers.A quick Google search find this reference [2]. Unfortunately, the article the blog refers to is now offline.

[I'm just taking a wild guess, but I'm wondering if User:Science-advocator may be one of the observatory's former lecturers, or someone with a connection to one.]

^BlankVerse 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Most likely. Not sure what to say about the "presenters." Reality is that the show should be handled by a recorded narration, although the actors provide a nice touch, albeit with additional expense and complexity. Eventually the institution will likely offer a suite of shows in which the classical lecturers can resume their traditional roles. Not sure if it's appropriate to speculate in the article, though. It strikes a nicely objective and informative tone right now.space artist 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The change in how the observatory shows are handled has been mentioned (briefly) in most of the general news articles on the observatory remodel (that is, those articles not on just on the architechture, etc.), and so it also deserves a brief mention in this article. One of the LA Times articles that I looked at last night had a quote from the directory of a local college-based observatory, so I may use that.

Discussion of possible changes in the future do not belong in the article unless they have been announced as definately scheduled changes (see WP:NOT - specifically, the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball).

The current version of the article needs some expansion of the History section. For example, some info about the provision in Griffith's will about the observatory being free. Also something about it's relationship to other observatories— wasn't it something like only the third planetarium in the US? A brief mention of the Laserium show is needed, because it was quite popular for awhile.

The article also needs a better description on how most of the new expansion is underground. Also needed is more info on the new exhibits. ^BlankVerse 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

I added this image to the gallery and I reckon it would make a good primary image for the page. I didn't want to just go and swap it out with the existing first image as that seems a little presumptuous, what does anyone else think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfield (talk • contribs).

I prefer the current lead image. I think the sky looks nicer. Mike Dillon 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem for both of them is that they have the façade in the shade, although the current lead picture looks like it was taken much later in the day (longer shadows) and so it is darker and shows less detail. I think that the photo by Matthew Field (Mfield (talk • contribs)) is the better choice. BlankVerse 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We'd need to get a picture at noon on the summer solstice to get the most illuminated view of the façade. Mike Dillon 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll endeavor to take a better one in the next few weeks when I actually get round to getting to the observatory rather than just hiking up behind it. The light will always be a problem with the north facing front of the building, my image is actually about as light as the front gets without recourse to an HDR image or a night shot. Mfield 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, summer solstice will be brighter, since the sun is farther north. It looks like you took your pic around the winter solstice from the image description, which is day when the front will be least illuminated. (update: I guess it was September; I was confusing the times on the two images) Mike Dillon 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I replaced my image on commons as I realized it had the wrong color profile, plus a few color and contrast adjustments. It's much better now - it looks the way it's supposed to - and I still think it is better than the existing main image which is distorted and fully in shadow...? Mfield 03:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I swapped it. Mike Dillon 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)