| Revision as of 20:14, 7 February 2005 edit216.174.135.2 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:07, 7 February 2005 edit undoCurps (talk | contribs)52,628 editsm Reverted edits by 216.174.135.2 to last version by CurpsNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ==Proposed rewrite== | ==Proposed rewrite== | ||
| With due respect to all who have edited this article previously, I think it could be improved enormously |
With due respect to all who have edited this article previously, I think it could be improved enormously. It containts some very unencyclopaedic writing (e.g. in section 1.1 Introduction), is entirely US-centric, and contains some very broad and sometimes bizarre sweeping statements about what astronomers do. It seems to me actually most of the article could be deleted, and replaced with a much more concise summary of what astronomers do. Would anyone else support a substantial re-write and compression of this article? ] 14:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Most of the middle section was added December 26 and reads like a school essay about careers rather than an encyclopedia article. I trimmed a fair bit of it, but it could probably still be tightened up. -- ] 23:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) | :Most of the middle section was added December 26 and reads like a school essay about careers rather than an encyclopedia article. I trimmed a fair bit of it, but it could probably still be tightened up. -- ] 23:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:07, 7 February 2005
Do we know who first suggested that the sun is just another star? That's always seemed to me to be a rather massive development in our understanding of our place in the universe... Evercat 00:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, found an answer at . Evercat 00:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I thank whoever did the report on astronomy as a job. It was very informative and helped me to understand what my brother was actually doing - :)
Proposed rewrite
With due respect to all who have edited this article previously, I think it could be improved enormously. It containts some very unencyclopaedic writing (e.g. in section 1.1 Introduction), is entirely US-centric, and contains some very broad and sometimes bizarre sweeping statements about what astronomers do. It seems to me actually most of the article could be deleted, and replaced with a much more concise summary of what astronomers do. Would anyone else support a substantial re-write and compression of this article? Worldtraveller 14:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Most of the middle section was added December 26 and reads like a school essay about careers rather than an encyclopedia article. I trimmed a fair bit of it, but it could probably still be tightened up. -- Curps 23:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)