User:Belajane41/sandbox

Revision Notes:

 * My primary goal for these revisions concerned a) revising the existing text to be more clear and concise and b) inserting additional information where appropriate.
 * My concerns about these revisions largely revolve around citations; I'm very nervous that I "broke" certain sources through the copying/pasting/editing process and plan to review the information again to make sure all references are correct.
 * I have organized these notes by providing the form of the original article text followed by the revisions I propose as a part of this Wiki project. Any text labeled "Initial Article (Section)" has been copied directly from the source article.

Initial Article Overview
Maria Mitchell (August 1, 1818 – June 28, 1889) was an American astronomer, who in 1847 by using a telescope, discovered a comet, which as a result became known as "Miss Mitchell's Comet". She won a gold medal prize for her discovery, which was presented to her by King Christian VIII of Denmark. On the medal was inscribed "Non Frustra Signorum Obitus Speculamur et Ortus" in Latin (taken from Georgics by Virgil (Book I, line 257) (English: "Not in vain do we watch the setting and rising [of the stars]"). Mitchell was the first American woman to work as a professional astronomer.

The third of ten children, she was raised in the Quaker religion, but later adopted Christian Unitarianism.

Proposed Revision:
Maria Mitchell (/məˈraɪə/; August 1, 1818 – June 28, 1889) was an American astronomer, librarian, naturalist, and educator. In 1847, she discovered comet 1847 VI (modern designation C/1847 T1) that was later known as “Miss Mitchell’s Comet” in her honor. She won a gold medal prize for her discovery, which was presented to her by King Christian VIII of Denmark in 1848. Mitchell was the first internationally known woman to work as both a professional astronomer and a professor of astronomy. She was also the first woman elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Early years


Maria Mitchell was born in Nantucket, Massachusetts to Lydia Coleman Mitchell and William Mitchell, who were Quakers. One of the tenets of the Quaker religion was intellectual equality between the sexes and Mitchell thrived in the broader Nantucket community in which such equality was highly regarded. She was the great-great-great-great granddaughter of Peter Foulger and Mary Morrill Foulger, and through them was a first cousin four times removed of Benjamin Franklin.

Mitchell's parents, like other Quakers, valued education and insisted on giving her the same access to education as boys received. She was fortunate that her father was a dedicated public school teacher who pursued an interest in mathematics and astronomy; he saw to it that Mitchell, who especially showed interest and talent, and all his children were indoctrinated with knowledge of astronomy. Additionally, Nantucket's importance as a whaling port meant that wives of sailors were left for months, sometimes years, to manage affairs at home while their husbands were at sea, thus fostering an atmosphere of relative independence and equality for the women who called the island home.

After attending Elizabeth Gardner small school in her earliest childhood years, Mitchell attended the North Grammar school, where William Mitchell was the first principal. Two years following the founding of that school, when she was 11 years old, her father founded his own school on Howard Street. There, she was a student and also a teaching assistant to her father. At home, her father taught her astronomy using his personal telescope. At age 12 1/2 she aided her father in calculating the exact moment of a solar eclipse.

Her father's school closed, and afterwards she attended Unitarian minister Cyrus Peirce's school for young ladies until she was 16. Later, she worked for Peirce as his teaching assistant before she opened her own school in 1835. Michell developed experimental teaching methods, which she practiced in her future teaching positions. She made the decision to allow nonwhite children to attend her school, a controversial move as the local public school was still segregated at the time. One year later, she was offered a job as the first librarian of the Nantucket Atheneum, where she worked for 20 years.

Proposed Revision:
Maria Mitchell was born on August 1, 1818 in Nantucket, Massachusetts to Lydia Coleman Mitchell, a library worker, and William Mitchell, a schoolteacher and amateur astronomer. The third of ten children, Mitchell and her siblings were raised in the Quaker religion, a faith with tenants valuing education and sensible work. Mitchell’s parents valued their children’s education: her father educated all his children about nature and astronomy and her mother’s employment at two libraries gave them access to a variety of knowledge. Mitchell particularly showed both an interest in and a talent for astronomy and advanced mathematics so her father taught her to operate a number of astronomical instruments, including chronometers, sextants, simple refracting telescopes, and Dollard telescopes.  '''Mitchell often assisted her father in his work with local seamen and in his observations of the night sky. The pair calculated a solar eclipse’s exact moment in 1831. '''

*Mitchell's education will be addressed here - Tyler and I are currently trying to review evidence from all of our sources to develop a more straightforward presentation of her early education*.

Mitchell began working as a librarian at the Nantucket Atheneum in 1836. '''The institution’s limited operating hours enabled her to assist her father with a series of astronomical observations and geographical calculations for the U.S. Coast Survey and to continue her own education. Mitchell and her father worked in a small observatory constructed on the roof of the Pacific Bank building with a four-inch equatorial telescope provided by the survey. In addition to looking for nebulae and double stars, the pair produced latitudes and longitudes by calculating the altitudes of stars and the culminations and occultations of the moon, respectively. '''

Few of Mitchell's personal documents remain from before 1846. The Mitchell family believes she witnessed personal papers of fellow Nantucketers blown through the street by the Great Fire of 1846, and because fear of another fire persisted, she burned her own documents to keep them private.

"Miss Mitchell's Comet"
At 10:50 pm on the night of October 1, 1847, using a Dollond refracting telescope with three inches of aperture and forty six inch focal length, Mitchell discovered Comet 1847 VI—modern designation C/1847 T1 and later known as "Miss Mitchell's Comet". Under her father's name Mitchell published a notice of her discovery in Silliman's Journal in January 1848. The following month, she submitted her calculation of the comet's orbit, ensuring her claim as the original discoverer. That year, she was celebrated at the Seneca Falls Convention for the discovery and calculation.

Some years previously, King Frederick VI of Denmark had established gold medal prizes to each discoverer of a "telescopic comet" (too faint to be seen with the naked eye). The prize was to be awarded to the "first discoverer" of each such comet (note that comets are often independently discovered by more than one person). Mitchell won one of these prizes, and this gave her worldwide fame, since the only previous women to discover a comet were the astronomers Caroline Herschel and Maria Margarethe Kirch. Her discovery and recognition by the Danish government legitimized American astronomy in Europe, whose astronomers previously looked down on American astronomers.

Temporarily, a question of priority arose because Francesco de Vico had independently discovered the same comet two days later, but had reported it to European authorities first. The question was resolved in Mitchell's favor and she was awarded the prize in 1848 by king Christian VIII.

Proposed Revision:
At 10:50 pm on the night of October 1, 1847, Mitchell discovered Comet 1847 VI (modern designation C/1847 T1) using a Dollond refracting telescope with three inches of aperture and forty-six inch focal length. She had noticed the unknown object flying though the sky in an area where she previously had not noticed any other activity and believed it to be a comet. The comet later became known as “Miss Mitchell’s Comet”. Mitchell published a notice of her discovery in Silliman's Journal in January 1848 under her father's name. The following month, she submitted her calculation of the comet's orbit, ensuring her claim as the original discoverer. Mitchell was celebrated at the Seneca Falls Convention for the discovery and calculation later that year.

In 1848, Mitchell was awarded a gold medal prize for her discovery by King Christian VIII of Denmark. This award had been previously established by King Frederick VI of Denmark to honor the “first discoverer“ of each new “telescopic comet” a comet too faint to be seen with the naked eye. A question of credit temporarily arose because Francesco de Vico had independently discovered the same comet two days after Mitchell but reported it to European authorities first. The question was resolved in Mitchell’s favor and she was awarded the prize. Her medal was inscribed with line 257 of Book I of Virgil’s Georgics: “Non Frustra Signorum Obitus Speculamur et Ortus” (English: Not in vain do we watch the setting and the rising [of the stars]). The only previous women to discover a comet were the astronomers Caroline Herschel and Maria Margarethe Kirch.

Proposed Section: "Later Years"
Mitchell became a celebrity following her discovery and awards, with hundreds of newspaper articles written about her in the subsequent decade. At her home in Nantucket, she entertained prominent academics of the time such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Herman Melville, Frederick Douglass, and Sojourner Truth. In 1849, Mitchell accepted a computing position for the U.S. Coast Survey undertaken at the U.S. Nautical Almanac Office. Her work consisted of tracking the movements of the planets - particularly Venus - and compiling tables of their positions to assist sailors in navigation.

Mitchell traveled to Europe with Nathaniel Hawthorne and his family as their daughter’s chaperone in 1857. '''While abroad, Mitchell toured the observatories of contemporary European astronomers Sir John and Caroline Herschel and Mary Somerville. She also spoke with a number of natural philosophers, including Alexander von Humboldt, William Whewell, and Adam Sedgewick.

'''

Proposed Section: "Vassar College"
Though Mitchell herself did not have a college education, she was appointed professor of astronomy at Vassar College by its founder, Matthew Vassar, in 1865. Mitchell was the first person appointed to the faculty and was also named director of the Vassar College Observatory, a position she held for more than two decades. Thanks in part to Mitchell's guidance, Vassar College enrolled more students in mathematics and astronomy than Harvard University from 1865 to 1888 (add citation - see citation number 27 in original article). Mitchell maintained many of her unconventional teaching methods in her classes: she reported neither grades nor absences; she advocated for small classes and individualized attention; and she incorporated technology and mathematics in her lessons. Though her students’ career options were limited, she never doubted the importance of their study of astronomy. “I cannot expect to make astronomers,” she said to her students, “but I do expect that you will invigorate your minds by the effort at healthy modes of thinking. When we are chafed and fretted by small cares, a look at the stars will show us the littleness of our own interests” (add citation - see citation number 29 in original article).

'''Mitchell’s own research interests were quite varied. She took pictures of planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, as well as their moons, and she studied nebulae, double stars, and solar eclipses. Mitchell then developed theories around her observations, such as the revolution of one star around another in double star formations and the influence of distance and chemical composition in star color variation. Mitchell often involved her students with her astronomical observations in both the field and the Vassar observatory.' Though she began recording sunspots by eye in 1868, she and her students began photographing them daily in 1873 (note - find initial citation for dates)''. These were the first regular photographs of the sun, and they allowed her to explore the hypothesis that sunspots were cavities rather than clouds on the surface of the sun. For the total solar eclipse of July 1878, Mitchell and five assistants travelled with a 4-inch telescope to Denver for observations (add citation - see citation number 23 in original article). Her efforts contributed to the success of Vassar’s science and astronomy graduates, as twenty-five of her students would go on to be featured in Who’s Who in America. 

*this section is unfinished at the moment and is again a mix of revisions to existing information and the insertion of new research*

*tyler and I will be addressing the other half of the article and adding to/revising its content after this peer revision*

Wikipedia Article In-Class Copyedit, 04/10/19
Rebecca: While abroad, Mitchell toured the observatories of contemporary European astronomers Sir John and Caroline Herschel and Mary Somerville. She also spoke with a number of natural philosophers, including Alexander von Humboldt, William Whewell, and Adam Sedgewick.

Tyler: until she was sixteen. Mitchell developed experimental teaching methods, which she also practiced in her future teaching positions.

Wikipedia Article Revision Goals

 * Why did you choose this article?
 * I chose this article because of my interest in astronomy and women in STEM. I fell in love with her story and her impact across disciplines during my article evaluation, and I feel that there are more areas of her life and work to share with interested readers.
 * What's missing from this article?
 * In my opinion, there appears to be two portions missing from her life, specifically between the years 1835 and 1847 and between the years 1848 and 1868. I also think that the page itself could also be restructured to better convey her life, legacy, and involvements, as described in my article evaluation.
 * What do you want to add to this article?
 * I would like to restructure the page to highlight her scientific achievements in lieu of certain personal details about her life, incorporate more information about her impact across other disciplines, and include information about the two "gap years" in her life.

Books

 * American Eclipse: A Nation's Epic Race to Catch the Shadow of the Moon and Win the Glory of the World (2017)
 * https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB502182318/?fromsearch=true&query_string=maria%20mitchell&last_query=/isis/%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bmitchell%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26sort_order_citation%3Dpublication_date_for_sort%26sort_order_dir_citation%3Ddescend%26sort_order_dir_authority%3Dascend
 * Maria Mitchell and the Sexing of Science: An Astronomer among the American Romantics (2008)
 * https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB000830835/?fromsearch=true&query_string=maria%20mitchell&last_query=/isis/%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bmitchell%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26sort_order_citation%3Dpublication_date_for_sort%26sort_order_dir_citation%3Ddescend%26sort_order_dir_authority%3Dascend
 * Maria Mitchell: A Life in Journals and Letters (2001)
 * https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB000471644/?fromsearch=true&query_string=maria%20mitchell&last_query=/isis/%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bmitchell%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26sort_order_citation%3Dpublication_date_for_sort%26sort_order_dir_citation%3Ddescend%26sort_order_dir_authority%3Dascend
 * Maria Mitchell and the Advancement of Women in Science (1987)
 * https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB000063488/?fromsearch=true&query_string=maria%20mitchell&last_query=/isis/%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bmitchell%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26sort_order_citation%3Dpublication_date_for_sort%26sort_order_dir_citation%3Ddescend%26sort_order_dir_authority%3Dascend
 * Maria Mitchell (1977)
 * https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB000091999/?fromsearch=true&query_string=maria%20mitchell&last_query=/isis/%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bmitchell%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26sort_order_citation%3Dpublication_date_for_sort%26sort_order_dir_citation%3Ddescend%26sort_order_dir_authority%3Dascend

Articles

 * Maria Mitchell: The Advancement of Women in Science (1978)
 * https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB000008779/?fromsearch=true&query_string=maria%20mitchell&last_query=/isis/%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bmitchell%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26sort_order_citation%3Dpublication_date_for_sort%26sort_order_dir_citation%3Ddescend%26sort_order_dir_authority%3Dascend
 * Three Women of American Astronomy (1990)
 * https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB000033744/?fromsearch=true&query_string=maria%20mitchell&last_query=/isis/%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bmitchell%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26sort_order_citation%3Dpublication_date_for_sort%26sort_order_dir_citation%3Ddescend%26sort_order_dir_authority%3Dascend

Wikipedia Article Evaluation Assignment
For this assignment, I chose to evaluate the Maria Mitchell article because of my interest in both women in STEM and in astronomy as a field of study. I greatly enjoyed learning about her life and its connections to other prominent scientific and social movements and would like to continue working with this article. This article was listed as a "C-Class" article within a larger group of articles produced by the History of Science Wikiproject.

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''


 * I think that the material presented in this article is, overall, related to its topic/subject matter, the life and work of Maria Mitchell. As a reader, however, I found myself distracted by the manner in which some of the material in the article was organized.
 * I think that the introductory material, for example, should incorporate more of her prominent achievements (of which there are many) in lieu of details about the gold medal she received and the fact that she was the third child. This information, in my opinion, would be better suited to the portion of the text that speaks of her early life and her scientific achievements.
 * I think that the page itself could also be restructured to better convey her life, legacy, and involvements. Many of the dates within the text are difficult to follow because they are not presented in an orderly fashion. Some are even excluded from the body text altogether, such as the year of her birth, which is only listed in the introduction and the sidebar.
 * Furthermore, a good deal of focus in her early life concerns her parents’ influence over her education. The same attention to detail does not always appear elsewhere in the article, especially when addressing Maria’s involvement in social causes (like those surrounding suffrage and slavery) and association with other academics.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'''


 * In my opinion, there appears to be two portions missing from her life, specifically between the years 1835 and 1847 and between the years 1848 and 1868. As a reader interested in both women in STEM and astronomy, however, I would also love to learn more about some of her other achievements, such as her work with sunspots. I have to wonder if she continued her work with comets or if she ventured to study other astronomical phenomena, like planetary bodies.
 * Most importantly, I think that certain aspects of the text require clarification. In the portion detailing her discovery of the comet for example, the article states, “she submitted her calculation of the comet’s orbit, ensuring her claim as the original discoverer”. This claim appears immediately after a sentence in which she published her initial discovery under her father’s name, so I as a reader am quite confused about the name she used when actually submitting her calculations.

What else could be improved?


 * An additional aspect of this article that could be revised concerns several of its internal links to other Wikipedia pages. The format of her birth and death locations, for example, differ: her birth place includes a unique link for Nantucket and a unique link for Massachusetts, whereas her death place links both Lynn and Massachusetts as “Lynn”. Similarly, the link provided for the Nautical Almanac Office redirects readers to the Wikipedia entry for the United States Naval Observatory. I think that this page should include a comment at the top to alert readers that “nautical almanac office” redirects to the United States Naval Observatory page to lessen confusion.
 * Another small aspect of the article’s organization that I noticed was the inclusion of images to supplement the text. Some aspects of the text that might warrant images do not have any, such as Maria Mitchell’s work with sunspots, while other portions of the text have images that do not correspond to the content, such as the use of a picture from 1877 alongside a discussion of her discovery of “Miss Mitchell’s Comet” in 1847. The telescope Maria Mitchell used in this discovery is completely different than the telescope she used later in her career at the Vassar College Observatory; I believe that the use of images in this article could be more effective.
 * Lastly, to follow up on the conversation about the pronunciation of her name, I think that a pronunciation formatted according to IPA standards should be included for her last name (to complement the pronunciation provided for her first name). There are also a few opportunities for basic copyedits throughout the text, such as the use of commas or misspelled words.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''


 * As a reader, I noticed several comments inserted throughout the article that, especially without citations, read as opinions of or comments on aspects of Maria Mitchell’s life.
 * In the section describing her early years, for instance, the text comments that, “She was fortunate that her father was a dedicated public-school teacher…”; in my opinion, the sentence could be restructured to convey her parents’ interest in education in a more neutral manner.
 * Similar phrasings can be found throughout the article, as well as sentences that appear to be claims with neither documented nor neutral support. A sample of this type of claim can be found in the section about Maria Mitchell’s discovery of her own comet: “Her discovery and recognition by the Danish government legitimized American astronomy in Europe, whose astronomers previously looked down on American astronomers”. I felt that this statement seems to oversimplify what may be a larger issue and require, at minimum, a reputable neutral citation and further explanation.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * This article certainly reads in favor of the Quaker approach to education and devotes much of Maria’s early years to the discussion of her position as a young woman within the culture and society at the time.
 * It does mention other contesters to her claim of discovery over the comet, suggesting a more neutral view of Maria’s scientific achievements.
 * I do, however, feel that more attention could be paid to her effect in other social movements (labeled “efforts” on the page), especially as a woman in STEM.

'''Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''


 * With regards to in-text citations, I noticed that there were a lot of sections of this article that did not contain any citations though I as a reader felt they may be necessary. The second paragraph of the text describing her discovery of the comet and subsequent praise from the Danish king does not include any in-text citations, despite the fact that some of the information in the paragraph could be strengthened with the explicit inclusion of references. A similar situation appears in the first paragraph of the early years section of the article, which also lacks in-text citations.
 * The high volume of references included in this article warrant further study, particularly when coupled with the bias present in certain portions of the body sections. There also appears to be a wide variety of references included in this article that range from chapter membership files to independent books and research articles.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?


 * The most recent conversations on the article’s talk page concern the modification of external links, edits that took place in 2017 and 2018 by a “report bug” user. The remaining conversations range from 2011 to 2015 and address missing information in Maria’s personal life in Nantucket, warns of a potential plagiarism issues concerning Maria’s academic achievements, challenges the pronunciation of her name according to the then-current pronunciation, and provides editors with another source from which to draw information about Maria Mitchell. I think that all of these comments are incredibly relevant and warrant further attention.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''


 * This article is a part of six ongoing WikiProjects:
 * History of Science
 * United States/Cape Cod and the Islands
 * Astronomy
 * Science and Academia
 * Women’s History
 * Women Scientists
 * Though the article is rated C-class within each project, the first three projects grouped above consider it to be of mid-importance. The remaining three consider it to be of unlisted importance, low-importance, and high importance, respectively. ~

Peer Review by Makaylacg (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
1.	What does the draft do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? a.	I really liked how they revised some of the existing articles so it made more sense and went more in detail. For example in the Miss Mitchell’s Comet they added that she found it because she noticed an unknown object in the sky where something hadn’t been before. b.	I also think the sections on “later years” and “Vassar College” are great additions to the article.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? a.	I might suggest maybe finding the reasoning for her unconventional method or how the school viewed it.

3.	What’s the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? a.	The author did a great job separating some of the existing paragraphs into different categories, I feel that it made the article much clearer.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? a.	Their idea of copying the initial part and then revising it within the paragraph is pretty smart. We were trying to do completely different revisions as separate paragraphs but it would be easier the other way. Makaylacg (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW

Tswptd (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) We were trying to go a little bit more in detail since the original Wikipedia article, and to make a more logical sense of the order of the writing. Some of the original sections did not follow chronological order. We tried to make our revisions to be more in chronological order.
 * 2) That is definitely something we are trying to find. That would help explain why she taught her students the way she did. And as far as how the school viewed her teaching would be a really good viewpoint to add to the article.
 * 3) This hopefully makes the article more chronological, and adds more detail to the Maria Mitchell wiki page.

Peer Review by Cwynd (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The proposed revision sections make it easy to understand the changes being made from the original article. Although it won’t be included in the final article, notes and side notes make it easier to understand what is missing from the article and what is understood to the author what is not yet included in the article. It is a bit unclear as to what exactly has been added to the article from the original. Contributions from the authors should be bolded or underlined to know what has been added since the original has been revised completely. New sections are full of new information and seem important to add to the final article. However, a few bits of information, such as in the “Vassar College” section, that seem a bit unnecessary and unimportant to a Wikipedia article. It is technically not useless information, but it should be considered by the authors if this information is absolutely necessary. Cwynd (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW

''Tyler and I will definitely follow Cwynd’s suggestion of indicating the information we added to our article though the use of bold or italic text. We rewrote many portions of the article, so we will have to review with Dr. Sheppard how to approach these sections of the body – specifically whether we should claim them as text added or expected copyedits. We do, however, disagree a bit with Cwynd’s perspective on the “Vassar College” section at this time. Tyler and I have been focused on revising the article’s structure/text and adding information to the body. We plan to reread the article and omit extraneous information after we have finished an initial complete draft. Additionally, regarding the “Vassar College” section in particular, Tyler and I chose to purposefully create a new section describing her role at the university. Mitchell was a major figure in women’s education and involvement in the sciences, and we believe that her contributions at Vassar are a critical part of her story. That being said, we would still be very interested in knowing what specific aspects Cwynd found extraneous.''