Talk:Astrology and science/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 18:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is a very good article, and seems to cover all major research, though, by necessity, it's a little bit disjointed. As I see it, there are really only two problems:

1. Obviously, WP:FRINGE means we don't need to present the fringe theory of astrology on the same level as science. However, there's a bias towards the modern day in this: it would be good to include a short section giving a historical overview of more ancient skeptics of astrology, as well as, where relevant, stating any influence on how astronomy developed. There may be a small amount of positive statements to be made for ancient astrologers who made discoveries while plying their craft, but don't feel you have to find someone to praise if that's not what the sources say.

2. What is the "synchronicity" that Carl Jung invokes in the last paragraph? It's nowhere defined.

Now, for FA, it could probably use some copyediting, and a bit more of an overall structure, but I think it's good enough for GA on those lines. So, let me know when you're ready for me to review again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes thats true, synchronicity isn't summarised here. I also agree that the article should provide a historical treatment, so I'll add that. Just to note that the points included would be specifically in relation to astrology and science, which includes scientifically grounded criticism, many of the historical objections were theologically based, which would be outside the scope of the article and covered in the main astrology article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, obviously. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a brief sentence saying what synchronicity is and linked to the main article. I've started a section on the historical relationship between astrology and science (particularly astronomy), and will expand it further. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks good! I'm largely inclined to promote it now, but I'll let you finish first, because being better never hurt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a week, so I'm going to pass this, but with one bit of advice for further improvements:

The weird footnoted footnotes, where a secondary footnote is used to note the page? Probably not a good idea; it's likely better to use any of the other methods of noting pages in the reference itself, such as the short form "Carlson (1985) p. 420" with the full reference being given after the footnotes, or the long form, having a different reference for every page, or, if it's not too many pages, just citing say, p.420-21. You're maybe being a little too innovative.

✅ Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Cheers! I'll look at the issue you mentioned, (I do have a fondness for the compactness of ) and continue the work on the history section IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)