Talk:Historical comet observations in China/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments
This is obviously a carefully-researched and well-written article, and I have few comments to make, and just one or two questions.


 * The 'Further reading' item by Ho Peng Yoke could be used as a ref. for the Halley's Comet section.
 * I've added something from the source on comet Ikeya-Seki. However, most of the rest is off-topic on supernovvae or other aspects of Chinese astronomy.  These are interesting subjects, but don't belong in this article.  The source actually doesn't say much usable about Halley other than its association with the Aquarids.  It does not say anything I feel could be used in this article.  If the Chinese sources associated meteor showers with comets, or modern astronomers were using ancient meteor showers to identify ancient "lost" comets then we could add something.  I suspect that it is likely the latter is actually happening, but this source does not explicitly say either of those things. SpinningSpark 10:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The numerical integration statement cited to Yeomans and Kiang at a first reading makes it sound as if that work were by Yeomans and Kiang themselves, but it actually refers to earlier work which they are supplanting (page 642). Perhaps it would be worth noting some of the key earlier workers, and also attributing the to-1404 BC integration to Y & K.
 * I'm not in a position to do that, I only have access to the abstract of the Y&K paper. I took the information in the article from a secondary source (Xu et al), whereas Y&K are the primary.  However, the Y&K abstract seems to unequivocally make the claim that they ran a numerical integration from 1759-1607 AD all the way back to 1404 BC.  Previous work by Kiang is mentioned but I'm not sure what that adds to our article.  I've added the work of Biot and Russell from the Xu reference. SpinningSpark 11:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The article would be enlivened with another image or two if relevant ones can be found. Meanwhile, the existing image could be enlarged and moved to the lead to make it a little more prominent.
 * I'm reluctant to use that image in the lead. There is no indication that comets are even mentioned in the document.  As I am not a Chinese speaker, I cannot tell myself, and for the same reason can't easily find more images.  However, I have found a 240 BC report of Halley to use in the lead. SpinningSpark 10:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (1.1.2) " its associated portent, usually military". It would be interesting to have one example of such a portent.
 * Done. I also noticed the same source verifies that the Han silk is describing comets, so I have now put that in the lead as requested. SpinningSpark 11:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of the lead, with "a feat not possible from modern data due to a close approach of the comet to Earth in the ninth century." isn't entirely clear and should be reworded.
 * I've changed that to "not possible solely from modern data", but I'm undure what you thought was unclear. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was the connection between the modern data and an event in the 9th century. I guess saying something about the fact that a close approach to a large body causes the orbit to change would make it clearer.
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the lead should mention the key dates discussed in the text.
 * Done, but I think we are now at the limit for the size of lead compared to article size.

Minor tweaks
(1.) "Ancient Chinese records of comet observations are the most extensive historical records in existence." presumably means "the most extensive w.r.t. comets": needs rephrasing.
 * Not really seeing the problem here. "Ancient Chinese records of comet observations are the most extensive historical records of comet abservations in existence" would just be mindless repetition. The subject of the sentence is "records of comet observations" so "most extensive...records" must mean "comet observation records". <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(1.) "broomstick here being a metaphor" should read "broomstick here is a metaphor".
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(1.) "a bit more problematic" should read "a little more problematic".
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(1.1.2) "Williams list contains " should read "Williams' ... " (or "Williams's ...").
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(2.) "The Chinese records have modern importance to science" could be better phrased.
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Images
The Mawangdui image is marked PD-old on Commons. I think it should be PD-Art|PD-old-100 to make clear that its use relies on the 2-dimensional works clause.
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary
I'm now happy to pass this as a good article, well up to the required standard. There are suggestions below, including my response to your question, which may improve the article further. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * Thanks for reviewing, I'm looking through your comments. And thanks for the kind words, but this was not so much "carefully researched and well-written" as a desperate and panicky attempt to save a very bad page from deletion.  It's more incidental that it turned out reasonably well.  Can I ask for your opinion as the review on the discussion at .  Thanks. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, it was indeed in a sad state on 15 Nov 2016. On the list of names, I'd have thought we could easily include them (the list isn't long), at least as a footnote. I certainly agree that the names were useful to the researchers, and it's curious to see what they were, if only for the feeling they give for the way that Chinese observers described the comets. In fact, since they bring the reader closer to "Historical comet observations in China", I think they should definitely form part of the main text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've put them back in. The editor who took it out did so on the grounds that there are other synonyms for comet in Chinese (someone on the language reference desk said something similar about there being many synonyms).  However, these are the ones that Needham and my other sources think are significant in terms of ancient documents and astronomical study of comets.  It's not meant to be a thesaurus entry. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I recently came across this article which provides some useful info concerning ancient Chinese observations of Kreutz sungrazers as small, bright objects next to the sun in the daytime. More here. I'm not sure the omission of this info is enough to hold up the GA nomination, but it's probably worth including at the nominator's leisure. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've put something in, and in fact that fits nicely with the piece on Ikeya-Seki which is also a member of the same group. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's hope everybody's pleased. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)