Talk:John Goodricke

Image of Goodricke
I have removed the image of John Goodricke, which was scanned by the uploader from a copyright publication (Sky & Telescope). The image as uploaded is not in the public domain. Rights are held by the Royal Astronomical Society. Licenses for reproduction should be addressed to them or their agents, Science Photo Library. RoyalAstronomicalSociety (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of this action, I added the image back to the article. See my talk page for my own comments. - Astrochemist (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the "original source" is the artist. I'm not sure that it is Wikipedia practice to include a portrait's owner in an infobox, but sometimes an artist's name is given there. - Astrochemist (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Honor
added that the asteroid 3116 Goodricke is named for him.Tham153 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is it now?
Two citations in the article provide evidence that the Goodricke portrait was presented to the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) in 1912. Can an acceptable citation be found to show that the RAS still has it, in London or elsewhere? The page for the Science Photo Library (linked from this article) does not explicitly state the portrait's location. If one wanted to view the portrait, where could it be found? Can a reference be located and added to this article? - Astrochemist (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that you look at the copy of Sky & Telescope you scanned the image from. There it is clearly stated that the portrait is "now in the possession of the Royal Astronomical Society, with whose permission it is reproduced here". I can assure you from personal knowledge that the portrait is still there. The original transparency from which the reproduction in S&T was made would have been created by the RAS, which retains and asserts rights over its use, the only difference since 1978 being that RAS images are now licensed through Science Photo Library rather than the library which supplied it to Sky & Telescope. We have no objection to low-res versions being used for educational purposes, but the same source details as on the original caption should have been included in the licence, hence my addition of the name Royal Astronomical Society to the credit line. RoyalAstronomicalSociety (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know what the Sky & Telescope article says because I have a copy. However, that article was written over 30 years ago.  What I want to know is where the portrait is now so that we can include it in Goodricke's article.  I'm not sure that Wiki-editors will accept either your word or mine, so is there an authoritative print source that gives the location for an interested party who might want to view the picture?  Help in tracking down a source will be appreciated.  -- Astrochemist (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Emailing the RAS librarian would be good place to start. His name is Peter Hingley and email is pdh at ras dot org dot uk (I also have his phone number if necessary). That is of course provided that he isn't also User:RoyalAstronomicalSociety... Modest Genius talk 00:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just emailed Peter Hingley on a related, broader issue, and have added a line to my email asking if he can say where the portrait is currently located. Hope that's OK. Mike Peel (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Born Deaf and Mute
A couple of points. Firstly, it says in one section he was born deaf and mute only later on to state he became deaf at the age of 5 due to scarlet fever. Secondly, this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20725639 supplies evidence that he wasn't mute at all. Has anyone got access to the original sources? Robruss24 (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

John Goodricke was positively deaf. I am not entirely clear on whether he could speak - he evidently had gone for some training in speech but as there is a description of him having to write notes back and forth with a visitor perhaps his speech was still imperfect. (I once worked up a show on him for a planetarium.) Sussmanbern (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ellingham and Valner
I see that the paragraph about Sean Ellingham and James Valner's work in 2005-6 was added in this edit by an IP from the University of York in March 2006 - without a source cited. In 2019, after Linda French's article Explaining Algol was published in Sky & Telescope, added to it the sentence about Edward Topham, with a citation to French.

I'm wondering just what French's article validates: whether just the statement about Topham, or about Ellingham and Valner's work as well. The abstract, which is all I've been able to find online, only mentions "The circumstances surrounding the discovery of Algol's variation". I thought I'd ask here first if anybody had the article, before going to WP:RX.

My guess is that the paragraph was originally inserted by Ellingham or Valner, and their work may never have been published. The only thing I can find about them that isn't copied from the Wikipedia article is this: for normal purposes that confirms that they did the work, but I'm dubious whether it is a reliable source by our standards. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have the Sky & Telescope article, which I have just reviewed. It mentions the Sidney Melmore study, but has nothing about the Ellingham and Valner pair. The French citation was meant only for the Topham sentence. SoylentPurple (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have emailed Martin Lunn, who is said (in the link above) to have liaised with Ellinham and Valner, asking if their results were published. Otherwise I shall remove the claim. ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have reluctantly removed the description of the students' work. Martin Lunn replied to my email, confirming that they did do this work under his direction, and they wrote it up, but he is not aware that their papers were published. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)