Talk:Operation Moonwatch

Untitled
The passage

"These two networks – one composed of amateurs and the other of seasoned professionals – helped further Whipple’s personal goals of expanding his own astronomical empire. This chapter explores how Whipple mediated and organized the participation of amateurs to further his own institutional goals"

seems both repetitive and out-of-place ("This chapter" suggests it has been cut-&-pasted from another text). I cannot speak as to its accuracy (though I've never come across similar descriptions of Whipple in 40 years of reading about Astronomy), but it reads like an overly-judgemental, subjective interpretation which if retained should be sourced, and would in any case be better placed in the article on Whipple himself. 40.0.96.1 11:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Legacy?
The current article contains a lot of unsourced material. The most questionable material is in the Legacy section, which includes statements such as


 * When the Smithsonian discontinued the program in 1975, one long-time Moonwatcher compared his participation to “winning the Medal of Honor.”

Umm... okay, but that's surely a monumentally stupid thing to say, and it is completely unsourced, so I think that sentence should be deleted. The article goes on to say


 * Quite a few people started their science careers through Moonwatch.

That's conceivably true, but can we have a source for this? Did a higher percentage of Moonwatch participants enter science than the general population? The article cites only one example, of a not-terribly-notable person (James Westphal). If that's the best we can come up with, I think the claim is not supported.

The article claims that


 * The program boosted science programs at many small schools throughout the country and helped revitalize the amateur science community in the United States.

Can we have a citation for this? Finally, the legacy section concludes with the unsourced statement


 * Scientists’ ability to say, with precision, where satellites are formed the basis for today’s Global Positioning System and was also valuable to the military during the Cold War.

Well, Operation Moonwatch had nothing whatsoever to do with today's GPS system, so that statement should be deleted. Whether Moonwatch was valuable to the military during the Cold War is debatable, but it would be nice to have a source for this.

Overall, much of the Legacy section is unsourced fluff that should be deleted.Urgent01 (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Operation Moonwatch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071010052130/http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=327104 to http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=327104

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Copy-Paste?
I was trying to find the source of the copy paste issue marked in February 2016. Earwig's tool identifies the copied source as a forum, which has a quote identical to the lead, and a link to wapedia below. Is this really a copy vio error on the article's part, or did someone on the forum copy the article? Is there a way I could tell? --Cincotta1 (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so this was a while ago, but looking at the entries I think I remember that part of the article began like it was a lead-in from another chapter. It looked extremely fishy as being copied from another source, but i don't know the source or have any proof other than what was slapping me in the face as an obvious cut-and-paste job. Does that help any? StarHOG (Talk) 17:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I might have jumped the gun pinging you; I am seeing some fishy stuff now, though nothing certain.


 * There isn't anything definitive in the lower confidence hits on Earwig's and anything with less than 5% confidence just seem to have certain long titles in common (e.g. 'the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge'). In all of the higher confidence hits (20% to 5%) the phrase 'initiated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) in 1956' comes up and some of the awkward language like 'became the public face of' comes up. I don't see anything like referencing a page number or saying 'in the following chapter,' that would obviously suggest copyvio, but I agree the language throughout the article is stilted like a book review in a newspaper or something. I'll keep looking, and leave the banner as it is for now.--Cincotta1 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you find any definitive proof one way or the other?  Kees08  (Talk)   03:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I lost track of it before I found anything. My suspicion is that it was self plagiarism: an early editor, Pmccray, added most of the awkward language, and this user name is similar to W. Patrick Mccray, the author of Keep Watching the Skies: The Story of Operation Moonwatch and the Dawn of the Space Age, but I never got around to finding a copy at my institution's library and verifying that the language was taken from there.--Cincotta1 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead an removed the tag as, per this discussion, and per my own examination, and per my request on the Copyright problems page, no one has found any particular specific copyvios. Anyone can feel free to add it back if they have some specifics that should be flagged as copyvios. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)