User talk:OdellZ17/sandbox

Hi Zack!

I've just read your draft on visible-light astronomy, and you've added some strong elements so far! You're doing yourself a favor by linking to your source in text from the first drafting round--it will make your move of your edits to the main article easier.

My biggest suggestions as you continue to work on this article are: --you include an image of the electromagnetic spectrum, and you mentioned possibly expanding the conversation of this spectrum in your additions to the article. If you plan to include the image, I would definitely recommend adding more to the article about the electromagnetic spectrum so the image feels more necessary to the conversation taking place in the article --I'm curious what the range of "tools" for visible-light astronomy is...we can see the moon, and many of the other mentioned astronomical objects, with the naked eye. Is a tool like binoculars or a telescope even necessary for visible-light astronomical viewing? Does some clarification of this fit somewhere in this article? --there is also a lot of space in this article--if you're looking for a new section to add--to discuss how telescopes used for visible-light astronomy have changed since Galileo

I hope these notes help a little as you continue working on this, and I look forward to seeing the next version of this article! Nicoleccc (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as your second point, technically, no, you don't need to have a telescope or some other tool to view some of these astronomical objects. However, especially with far away objects such as planets, viewing without any kind of telescope or binoculars means that you can just see a point source of light, meaning that you only see a speck of light where the object is, but no detail besides color. Imagine that you can see a painting, but you're so far away that you can't make out any detail other than simply knowing that where you are looking at there is a painting. But if you use a telescope, you can see all the detail and intricacies, assuming good conditions, of said painting. So in a sense, it's technically not necessary to have a telescope, but you're missing out on the majority of the hobby without one. Additionally, viewing without a telescope is generally considered "skygazing" which was mentioned in the article, so I felt that it wasn't necessary to include this distinction, but if you think that it could use clarification then that is something I could add without much difficulty.

I'll work on expanding the other parts of the article, such as the part about the electromagnetic spectrum and some history since Galileo as you suggested. Thanks for the suggestions! OdellZ17 (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)