Talk:Henrietta Swan Leavitt

Henrietta Swan Leavitt has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 6, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 12, 2017, December 12, 2021, and December 12, 2022.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Astronomy High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mahwish.razi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel nomination

The ACS Bio states that "Professor Mittag-Leffler of the Swedish Academy of Sciences sent her a letter in 1925, declaring his intent to nominate her for the Nobel Prize in Physics the following year for her role..." [my emphasis]

The claim that he "considered" her and that Shapley claimed 'interpretating' her results is supported by a non-English-language citation. (I.E. I can't read it.) This question deserves resolving. I've added '1926' to the awards section but found no further resolution.
It further occurs to me that Shapley may have made the post-mortem claim in hopes that Harvard would reap a Nobel. Excuseable, perhaps. Twang (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quote: women were not allowed to operate telescopes

I'm not sure about this. The main reason she was not operating the telescope is that the Cepheids she was most interested in were in the Magellanic Clouds, which are southern hemisphere objects. I.e. she was in the US and the telescope was in Chile.

There is also the fact that there are examples of earlier women astronomers who did operate telescopes, Caroline Herschel for example.

She deserves much more exposure. I'm happy someone took the time to create the entry for her. But I'd like to see a better reference, and perhaps more detail for the "women were not allowed to operate telescopes" quote.J8h (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that you say, editor J8h. Perhaps the restriction was only for the women at her institution? I'm sure you're looking for more info, and when time allows I shall help in the search for better references. For example, the ACS bio mentioned in the previous comment is now a dead link and needs to be resolved. I checked the ACS website to see if the page had been moved, but evidently they have rm'd the bio. I would love to find her bio on the internet, the one mentioned in the article by George Johnson, and am still searching.

As for the entry, Leavitt certainly deserves as much exposure as possible. I consider her the "Mother of Modern Astronomy" since it was she who made the discovery that led to the realization that the Milky Way galaxy is not the entire Universe— that there are billions of other galaxies outside the Milky Way. She's a remarkable historical figure and I shall pay more attention to this article's improvement.

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up. Found some pages out of Johnson's book, and on page 28 was Bailey's obit quote, so I rm'd the deadlink and replaced it with the new source.

— Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 08:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you were able to locate a source for that. I think Johnson's book is quite good overall. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get a copy and devour it! Thank you for taking the time to comment and Happiest of holidays to you and yours!

— Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref. given, number 4, seems to say nothing about the ban on operating telescopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.204.57 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Herschel was operating a telescope long before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.119.12 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced an Unreliable source? tag (inserted by Special:Contributions/38.88.230.162) with a Dubious tag. Quoting the anonymous editor, "A simple web search leads to several source's[sic], some cited back to first hand accounts contradicting the statement in question. It is an un-cited generalization implying women were simply a.) banned b.) not just at Harvard, but (presumptively implying) everywhere as well, and c.) without any exceptions from operating telescopes, when the apparent reality is the culture around Harvard saw it as (rougly ranging from unsightly to inappropriate) for a women to work w..." The cited source (Exploratorium) does back up the claim, stating "In the early 1900s, women were not allowed to operate telescopes," and it's a reliable source. However, the Exploratorium page is a one-paragraph summary of HSL's work, and it lacks nuance and detail. Dgorsline (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Women in technology

This is a newly created cat by 28bytes on 17 February 2011. — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 06:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henrietta Swan Leavitt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Citation required templates added. Supply the required references. Also: Ventrudo is in the references, but not used.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Good job finding images

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Copyvios

To editor Ian (Wiki Ed): Would you mind, please, to explain why you feel those two edits you made were copyvio fixes? And if they are copyvios, why not just fix them (put them in your own words, etc.) rather than remove them from this "Natural sciences good article"? It's just that I find it rather profound that this article made it to GA status while it contained copyvios. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and restored most of the deletions in rewritten form. The section "Personal life" had a lot of duplication about her eduction, and not much on her personal life, I worked the non duplicative parts into other sections--agr (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, agr – and while I'm no expert, I'd like to note two items to the remover of the material:

Exact wording of excerpts is allowed in order to maintain precision and conciseness, especially for quotations, and
brief excerpts of copyrighted works are allowed under the fair-use statutes.

I know there is a tendency on Wikipedia to err on the safe side, but I don't think there were or are any true copyvios in this article. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 09:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I removed was lifted verbatim or nearly verbatim (recall the close paraphrase is still copyvio) from the sources, so yes, that's unambiguous copyvio. In the case of the quote, the words introducing the quote were taken verbatim from the source. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for fair use - see WP:NFCC. Lifting a paragraph from a source and re-using it here without quotes is clear copyvio. Use it with quotations and the basic questions come into play - is it the subject of critical commentary? Is it replaceable? No, and yes. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Ian (Wiki Ed) and agr: Okay, as I said I am no expert on copyright; however, I still find it perplexing that Leavitt's article could attain GA status while it contains copyvios. In any case, Joys and Happy Holidays to you and yours! – Paine 16:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the short answer is that nobody is perfect and we are all volunteers. It's easy to overlook small sections of text copied from the sources. It is also something that is easy enough to fix. Hers is an amazing and important story and I hope the article is a little better for everyone's efforts. Happy holidays to you too.--agr (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faint praise

I'm bothered by the following quotation in the "Influence" secxtion, which (a) is more about Hubble than Leavitt, (b) strikes me as a put-down of Leavitt's work and (c) is purely subjective. I've removed it to here. If it belongs anywhere (which I doubt) it belongs with Hubble.

"If Henrietta Leavitt had provided the key to determine the size of the cosmos, then it was Edwin Powell Hubble who inserted it in the lock and provided the observations that allowed it to be turned," wrote David H. and Matthew D.H. Clark in their book Measuring the Cosmos.^[1]

Zaslav (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ David H. Clark; Matthew D.H. Clark (2004). Measuring the Cosmos: How Scientists Discovered the Dimensions of the Universe. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3404-6.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Henrietta Swan Leavitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henrietta Swan Leavitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428092711/http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nomination/nomination_faq.html to https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nomination/nomination_faq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Needed

In the third paragraph under Biography - Early years and education, I added a clarification needed template after the sentence "However, invented the title Curator of Astronomical Photographs for her in 1898." The reason for this is that it is unclear who invented the title. I considered simply changing the sentence to "However, the title Curator of Astronomical Photographs was invented for her in 1898" to remove the need for a "who", but decided to add the clarification template instead in the hopes someone will know who invented the title.

Thanks,

Dbusb (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again

Your statement " Such techniques can only be used for measuring distances up to hundreds of light years" is wrong. Parallax is not applicable for distances of "hundreds of light years".

Arydberg (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the Sloan Digital Sky Survey site:

The Hipparcos satellite, which makes its measurements from Earth orbit, measured the parallax distances to about 120,000 stars with an accuracy of 0.001 arc seconds, and about 2.5 million stars with a lesser degree of accuracy. This gives accurate distances to stars out to several hundred light-years.

Gaia measurements are even more accurate. -- Elphion (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, since the focus is on the contemporary importance of Leavitt's discovery, a better sentence would be 'Such techniques could at that time only be used for measuring distances up to about ten light years'. Neither, I think, is there any point including 'triangulation' as well as 'parallax'. 14.49.193.100 (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] David H. Clark; Matthew D.H. Clark (2004). Measuring the Cosmos: How Scientists Discovered the Dimensions of the Universe. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3404-6.

[1]