Talk:Cosmos (Humboldt book)

Outline
Kosmos (usually referred to in English as "Cosmos") was an influential treatise on science and nature written by the German scientist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt. Kosmos began as a lecture series delivered by Humboldt at the University of Berlin, and was published in five volumes between 1845 and 1862 (the fifth was posthumous and completed based on Humboldt's notes). Widely read by academics and laymen alike, it applied the ancient Greek view of the orderliness of the cosmos (the universe) to the Earth, suggesting that universal laws applied as well to the apparent chaos of the terrestrial world.

Kosmos was influenced by Humboldt’s various travels and studies, but mainly by his journey throughout the Americas. As he wrote, “it was the discovery of America that planted the seed of the Cosmos.” Due to all of his experience in the field, Humboldt was preeminently qualified for the task to represent the universe in a single work. He had extensive knowledge of many fields of learning, varied experiences as a traveler, and the resources of the scientific and literary world at his disposal.

Kosmos was received spectacularly when it was released, with the first volume selling out in two months, and the work translated into most European languages. Although Kosmos is considered to be a scientific and literary achievement, Humboldt’s work has become somewhat outdated with the advancement of natural sciences. However, Humboldt’s text has made many contributions to scientific progress in his conception of the unity of science, nature, and mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyweir (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Some Suggestions for this article !
With due respect to the previous contributors. I want to make some suggestions for this wiki page. Firstly, there is no separate intro/lead section that summarizes the article. It misses the point how Humboldt revolutionized the the idea that nature is unconnected to the men. Secondly, there is no structure for this article. I understand that it is not necessary when the article only describes very little information about COSMOS. It would have been better if there were more information about cosmos with different subtitle/sections. There are not many topics that described the significance of the article. I believe that, article was written in an unbiased way, but there are so little information about such an influential book is very surprising. This article could have included some picture painted by Humboldt, in which he wanted to depict the harmony with the natural world. Some more references could be helpful to establish this article as a substantial one. Abue.chowdhury (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
I really appreciate the way this article is organized, especially the Background and Influences section. I like the way the author chose to divide the information into three separate sections. The organization of this article and its information made it very easy to read, understand and extract the important information. I only had a brief understanding of Humboldt’s Cosmos before reading this article and I think this article does a great job of introducing and touching upon the most pertinent parts of Cosmos, in doing so making it interesting and relevant. I understand the importance of having discussing the publication of this work however I am not sure that it needs its own heading and section. I think that perhaps this section could be trimmed down and added in as a closing to the previous section. In addition I think that the Reception and Legacy sections could be shortened and combine into one section because they revolve around a somewhat similar meaning and overall point. Otherwise, excellent job! Alilafferty (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
The lead-in section of this article is really strong. It summarizes the main points of the rest of the article and is very easy to understand. This section is quite possibly the strongest part of the article. I liked how there were citations used in this section right away, since this gives the reader a notion that the lead-in section is credible. I really don't think this section should or could be changed very much, other than perhaps adding one more sentence about the actual content. In regard to the structure, I felt that some of the positives were the images and diagrams element, as there were large images placed in strategic areas that made it really visually appealing and easy to follow. Something that could be improved would be the appendices and footnotes section, and maybe a bit greater breakdown of headings and subheadings. The ones that were there divided up the article very well, but I thought maybe a few more sections could be added as well. The article is arranged as chronologically as possible, so that does aid in making it easy to follow. Since it is a book, it is somewhat hard to have a wide range of chronological variation, but as a whole, the article is arranged very well.

Overall, I thought the article was balanced just fine. I do think the reception and legacy sections could be combined and made into a single section, since it almost seemed to stretch it too thinly by making them two separate sections. The article coverage was neutral and unbiased as far as I could see. The reception section mentioned both positive accolades as well as negative criticisms, so I thought that was really good. Finally, I think one thing that could be improved upon would be the variety of sources used. There were only a few references listed, and a good article will have plenty of references to back up the information. The good thing was that the sources that were used all did seem to be valid and reliable, so I think it might just be a case of needing to find a few more to give it a bit of diversity. As a whole, the article is well put together, very well organized, and is a strong complement to the Wikipedia page that already exists about Alexander von Humboldt. Srk017 (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A few other comments
Hi Ashley. Just a quick note to offer some of my own comments. You've done a great job expanding this article by basing it on solid research. You've also kept the elements of high-quality articles in mind, which is reflected in the very positive reviews of your work by your classmates. Your classmates offered some great suggestions on structure, I wanted to touch on some other content suggestions. I wanted to see if you plan on adding material from two of the other sources you had on your annotated bibliography--that from Jeff Lee (Alexander von Humboldt in Focus on Geography from 2001) and K. Mathewson, (Humboldt's Twenty-First Century Currency in "Geographical Review" from 2006). Based on your annotations, it looks like these sources could help you fill out the discussion of the build-up of Kosmos through Humboldt's lectures as well as the reception and legacy of the book. Did you find any other good information in those pieces that you didn't already find in Walls or Sachs? Definitely be in touch if you have any other questions, and all my best! --Enstandrew (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)