Talk:Galileo Galilei: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis
(move checklist to the top)
imported>Daniel Drake
m (Uselessly changed status to 3 so it's at least correct in source code.)
Line 5: Line 5:
|                cat3 =  
|                cat3 =  
|          cat_check = Y
|          cat_check = Y
|              dUmMy= 4
|              dUmMy= 3
|        underlinked = Y
|        underlinked = Y
|            cleanup = Y
|            cleanup = Y

Revision as of 13:07, 5 April 2007


Article Checklist for "Galileo Galilei"
Workgroup category or categories Astronomy Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status Not specified
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by David Martin 21:16, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Imported from Wikipedia for a preliminary version, which will require a good deal of work.

Requesting a moratorium on changes while I do initial Citizendium import fixups and make some of the most badly needed changes to the text.

The version selected is the one that was current at the end of June, 2004[1], the product of some 6+ months of work after it was given Featured Article status. Since that time many improvements have been made in the Wikipedia text, but on balance it has become more flabby and poorly organized, and more argumentative (in a generally non-scholarly way), rather than less. Hence this semi-arbitrary choice of a starting point. Daniel Drake 11:27, 1 April 2007 (CDT)


[Omitting irrelevant rant against the software.]

Added the Wikipedia template to the end of text. Now, do I go on checking the Wikipedia-cotent box (which seems to be on by default) with every submission of new content? Have inquired on a more relevant talk page now. Daniel Drake 11:27, 1 April 2007 (CDT)


Modified the intro, on the theory that Galileo's claims to fame are strong enough without asking for priority wars over who was the real father of this or that, or whether he was The First to do real experimentation, or one of the first, or one Western Johnny-come-lately in exerimentation, etc. Those disputes belong elsewhere.

However, it really ought to have nods to a few things that a new reader will actually be interested in: heliocentrism, telescopes, fights with the Inquisition, and real, quantitative physics. Let's work these in, as briefly and neutrally as possible. Daniel Drake 00:33, 2 April 2007 (CDT)