User:COeditor1/sandbox

General info

 * COeditor1,SRMcGarvey
 * Edward Charles Pickering

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Yes, the information added and subtracted to the article cleared up the story and left only the pertinent information
 * The sources used were not necessarily up-to-date, but did contain good information.
 * There is still some important information missing, like cause of death, but a lot of unnecessary information has been removed, and good information is being added

Content evaluation
The article still has some work to do content wise, but the changes made so far, even if minor, have done a good job at clearing up the information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * The content is neutral
 * No, all the information seems very organized and to the point. I could find no signs of biases.
 * There are several sections that are underrepresented, but that will change as more information is added.
 * No, the content added is completely fact-based and neutral

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is completely neutral as it should be. To the point and precise. Balance of topics could be worked on, but once again that will be sorted once more information is added.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * The sources I explored from their references seemed reliable.
 * The sources were thorough.
 * No, some sources from more recent years would be helpful and could provide newer information.
 * Most articles were written and some form or another by historians, which is expected of a articles on historical figures.
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Sources were reliable and provided good info, but some more recent articles could be helpful. A lot of the articles were from the 1900s and were not necessarily outdated. However, I believe the article could benefit from newer sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Information was precise, clear, and flowed smoothly.
 * I could not spot any glaring grammatical errors through my review
 * The content's organization flowed well and was well-organized.

Organization evaluation
Organization was fine. It fits well with the info already in the article and is organized well on its own, so it should only aid the articles organization and flow in its entirety.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * The information added does complete the article some, but it is not substantial enough yet.
 * It builds on the history of Edward Charles Pickering where information on the subject was relatively slim before.
 * More details on certain events (ex: his death) could be added.

Overall evaluation
The added information so far has been good. It has opened up a lot of good subject material that can be looked into more to provide even more detail and information on this historical figure. I think that they should continue to find and delete and useless information, because there seemed to be a lot of that before the previous edits. Overall, the added info was unbiased and necessary, and aided the article in providing a more in-depth and historical background of Edward Charles Pickering. Peer reviewed by DylanDunbar24

Response to peer review
I appreciate Dylan's feedback a lot. I agree with the fact that the sources are pretty old, but he lived a long time ago, so there isn't much about him that is recent. I have tried searching for his cause of death, but I still cannot find a reliable sources that gives me this answer. He also mentioned that there are some areas that are underrepresented, so I will try to get more content uploaded this week. In summary, I need to find more recent sources, locate a cause of death, and continue to find more information that would support the relatively short article. COeditor1 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Cory Oviatt Contributions:
Edward Charles Pickering

Early Plans:
Seamus and I chose this article to edit because it looks like it needs quite a bit of work and there are some important pieces of history left out.

I think that Pickering's Harem should be covered more thoroughly and there isn't much listed on his death, so these two things should be researched and added.

I also plan to explore the reasons why Pickering chose to work with women instead of men. Was it predatory? Did he believe they were better at computing? The second source listed below has some info on this.

It is mentioned in the third source that Pickering was at MIT for 10 years, and even founded "the first physics laboratory in America specifically designed for student instruction and had encouraged his students to design experiments" (Plotkin, 44). This isn't even mentioned in the Wiki article, so it should be added as well.

Published Additions
Added: Soon after graduating from Harvard, Pickering taught physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. During the 10 years he was there, he created the first physics lab in America that was designed for students to publish their own findings and research.

Pickering's Harem
The article could probably use an entirely separate section for "Pickering's Harem". I am still unsure about this though because with enough information, Pickering's Harem might be able to support its own Wikipedia Article. There is an article titled "Harvard Computers", and although it does mention Edward Pickering, it does not mention Pickering's Harem.

Death
I found out that Pickering continued a 42 year long tradition of HCO directors who have while holding office. I have not been able to find the cause of death.

Education and Personal Life
Pickering was born in Boston, Massachusetts on July 19, 1846 to a distinguished, cultivated family consisting of his father, Edward Pickering and his mother, Charlotte Hammond.(Metcalf) He was educated at Boston Latin School, and then studied at the Lawrence Scientific School at Harvard, where he received his Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in 1865. (Metcalf) In 1874, Pickering married Lizzie Wadsworth Sparks, whose father was formerly the President of Harvard. (Metcalf) Mrs. Pickering died in 1906, and Edward died in 1919. (Metcalf)

Career and Research
Immediately upon graduating from Harvard he was hired as an instructor of mathematics and a year later he moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to be an assistant professor of Physics.(Metcalf) Two years later, he was made Thayer Professor of Physics.(MIT) During the 10 years he was there, he created the first physics lab in America that was designed for students to publish their own findings and research.[5] In 1872, Pickering named this lab the Rogers Laboratory of Physics and pronounced himself to be Director of the Laboratory. (Metcalf)

In 1882, Pickering developed a method to photograph the spectra of multiple stars simultaneously by putting a large prism in front of the photographic plate.[9] Using this method, Pickering and his team captured images of over 200,000 stars.(MIT) This immense amount of photographic research has provided scientists for decades with a seemingly endless library containing the history of every visible star's movements. (Metcalf) It is said that this research weighs 120 tons due to the size of photographic plates. (metcalf) He, along with Williamina Fleming and Annie Jump Cannon[10] designed a stellar classification system based on an alphabetic system for spectral classes that was first known as the Harvard Stellar Classification and became the basis for the Henry Draper Catalog. It was adopted universally. (Metcalf)

Pickering's Harem
At Harvard, he recruited over 80 women to work for him, including Annie Jump Cannon, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, Antonia Maury, and Florence Cushman. Leavitt's discovery of the period-luminosity relationship for Cepheids, published by Pickering,[8] would prove the foundation for the modern understanding of cosmological distances. It was very unusual for such an accomplished scientist to work with this many women, but it has been said that "he became so exasperated with his male assistant's inefficiency, that even his maid could do a better job of copying and computing".[6] These women, the Harvard Computers (also described as "Pickering's Harem" by the scientific community at the time), made several important discoveries at HCO.[7] The work that Pickering gave them was huge for the female community at the time, but they still faced many challenges like low pay, zero opportunities for advancement, and very little credit for their efforts. [6]

COeditor1 (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Seamus McGarvey Contributions
Add to article


 * Pickering’s Harem or experiments

Shortly after the death of college doctor and amateur astronomer Henry Draper, an opportunity presented itself for Pickering. Draper death left the incompletion of his work studying astronomy using photography. Draper had no children to carry on and finish his legacy, so his wife, Mary Anna Draper, planned on finishing his work. Pickering wrote a letter to Mrs. Draper “…pray recollect that if I can in any way advise or aid you, I shall be doing but little to repay Dr. Draper for a friendship which I shall always value, but which can never be replaced.” Mrs. Draper urgently responded and soon dropped off her husband’s work to Pickering. Pickering concluded that Draper’s use of photography in astronomy was very promising opposed to the traditional method of observation and recording using one’s eye through instruments. In 1884, a paper on such observations was published with the author “the late Henry Draper''. After receiving criticism from Dr. William Huggins, a friend of Dr. Draper, Pickering began to hire more assistants to strengthen Draper’s findings. This consequently also strengthened and contributed to Pickering’s Harem. [book pg 23-45]''

Harvard observatory was becoming a premiere observatory in the world and with it came the demand for more assistants. These assistants were critical for taking notes, running calculations and performing analytics. College educated ladies from around the country offered to work for the Harvard Observatory unpaid to gain experience or until proving their value to be paid. [book pg 201] Pickering’s treatment of women, during his time, was considered better than most. This aided to observatory’s funding through fellowships and the procurement of women including alumnus and professors. [book pg 485]

Family Brother William Pickering. As a graduate of MIT and professor of photographic tetchiness of objects in motion, he was able to assist his brother’s work of photographing astrological phenomena. [book pg 48]
 * Personal Life


 * Death and Legacy

(Previous sentences)

Although today his treatment of women is associated with a negative connotation, he paved the way for many more women to become interested and involved in astronomy.

Pickerings work with using glass plates to photograph the sky was the start of major technological advances for astrological photography. Although glass plates are no longer used, his work led to modern uses of CCD’s and charged coupled devices in the 1970’s [book pags 485]

Things to add/mention

 * Pickering's Triangle: Not too important but its an astrological observance named after him.
 * Must talk about the Harem, as Cory previously stated. Must also mention Williamina Fleming
 * Last sentence, fourth paragraph under career, his ownership of a golden knife is irrelevant
 * Second to last paragraph under career, that in-text citation is so cluttered.
 * did he do anything worth mentioning after his time at the Harvard lab
 * In a new section titled Death and Legacy: On February 3rd, 1919, Pickering unexpectedly died after after a short illness. He died while holding the position of director of the University Observatory continuing an odd 42 year tradition of HCO Directors dying in office.

Seamus Peer Review Response
I think it would be useful to go over every citation in this article (maybe closer to publishing) and make sure links work, are up to date, and are correct. Covering Edward Pickerings death is tricky. The best information I have found on it was he unexpectedly died following an illness. It does not specifically say what illness so I plan to include what I can find. I want fill the rest of his death section with his legacy and what he left behind at Harvard not related to his scientific achievements. I think, based on the peer review, we should do another round of reading over the article deleting sentences that do not quite fit and fill those parts with relevant information. Finding new information to add is hard since this is such a niche article, but we are going to continue looking at areas that need more clarity and searching for sources.

Astrolabe Article Evaluation Questions & Answers
Yes, everything appears to be relevant. I wasn't distracted by anything in the article. The article seems neutral to me. Many would likely argue that the article favors this piece as an important piece of technology, but I don't think it is biased. It is just stating the importance of the invention. No, but in the construction tab, I think there should be a schematic with each piece of the astrolabe labeled added. There are many notes, bibliographies, and links, but after browsing through most of them, they do work and seem to support the topic. As far as I know, nothing has changed or is out of date. I am not enough of an expert on the subject to suggest that anything be added.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 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?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?