Talk:Dynamics of the celestial spheres/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 21:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Look forward to working with you. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]All right, sorry it has taken me so long to get to this!
- Prose: Consider removing the phrase In considering the physics of the celestial spheres from the section on material, it doesn't seem necessary.
- Aether: What does it mean that aether took its name from the personification in mythology? I am not sure what is being personified here.
- Aether: Did Aristotle think the spheres were made of aether? Maybe change However, the spheres themselves.... to For Aristotle, however, the spheres themselves...
- Causes of motion: depending on which of the two contemporary models... What are the two models referred to here?
- Causes of motion: In On the Heavens, Aristotle was content with the view of eternal circular motion as moving itself, in the manner of Plato's world-soul, which lent support to three principles of celestial motion: an internal soul, an external unmoved mover, and the celestial material (aether) How does the idea that the spheres move themselves support the notion of an unmoved mover?
- Philoponus: This is interpreted as an application of the concept of impetus to the motion of the celestial spheres. Who interprets it this way?
- Lead: The lead is quite short and could be expanded to be more representative of the article, perhaps with brief explanations of the Platonic and Aristotelian views and how they were later modified.
- Images: It would be great to have more images here, of the thinkers themselves if no representations of the ideas are available.
These are all minor issues, however. All in all, the article is great! It is comprehensive without being excessively detailed and understandable without seeming oversimplified. I am happy to pass this as a GA, with the above comments as a basis for future work. Excellent job! --Cerebellum (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)