Talk:Wold Cottage meteorite

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Wold Cottage meteorite is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology: Meteorites Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Wold Cottage meteorite is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Meteorites task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Astronomy Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I don't think the article has any problem distinguishing between fact and fiction. The first paragraph describes the actual falling of the meterorite in factual terms. The second describes what Farmer made of it, and is clearly identified as fiction. Seems fair enough to me. Daibhid C 14:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I have added a bit more on the factual side. Daibhid C 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be adding some factual stuff about the meteor. First, it's official name is the Wold Cottage Meteor. Second, it's an L6 class common chondrite. Third, there are specimens scattered all over. I'll come bach and put these on the main page, when I'm up to citing my sources (been doing LOTS of reserah on this piece of sky...) 24.176.0.225 10:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioning

The numerous small subsections don't really increase readability... AnonMoos (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion they can help the article development. Take a look for example at other meteorites. However probably "Importance" can be merged with "The meteorite" and "In fiction" can be merged with "Other". -- Basilicofresco (msg) 16:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merged some sections in order to improve readability. How would do you call the section from the merging of "In fiction" and "Other"? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific gravity

The listed specific gravity value of 3418 must be an error. Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of the material to that of water and osmium, the most dense element has a value of 22.59. Vsmith (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, took it out although the 1806 ref states that - it is not realistic or consistent with modern definition. Could possibly have meant 3.418, but the ref didn't say that. Don't know what the 1806 definition of specific gravity was. Vsmith (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]