Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Technosignature

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Technosignature

[edit]
(
)

Moved to mainspace by Wer900 (talk). Self nominated at 20:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC).

  • Article is new, posted same day as nominated. Article is long enough, hook is short enough. Is neutral and cites sources. No copyright vio, close paraphrasing or plagiarism issues detected. Construction of article is as stated in the editor's comment. Meaning of concept is the same in both discussions. Related text has been modified. Hook is interesting, accurate and supported by in-line citations. Hook is from one sentence, another sentence follows and the related citations are footnoted from that second sentence. (I would not have a problem with title of the article being used in the hook but the description given is ok). Not a BLP, no BLP issues. No images. QPQ noted.
I have read articles in Space.com and it is a reliable, professional source which can be viewed on line. I have read Paul Davies's book The Eerie Silence and am familiar with this topic. The article is a good summary. I thumbed through my copy of the book. Davies speaks of the concept and the examples and uses similar language but I don't see that he uses the compound word which is the title of the article. This does not matter at all in terms of the accuracy of the statement about him discussing technosignatures, at least the concept, which he does at length. That technicality also is unrelated to the hook in any event. Good to go in my opinion. Donner60 (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the hook say what the image is of? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I added a "pictured" to the original hook where important; hopefully that should resolved the problem. Do you want that word somewhere else? If so, rearrange it at your pleasure provided that it makes sense. Wer900 • talk 00:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I just rearranged the words around to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have undone the closing of this DYK and the placement in prep area 3. I have not read the article and have no concerns about the actual merits or DYK rules here, but the hook is IMO not really acceptable. Shortened, it reads

  • "that the city lights of an alien planet may signal the presence of an extraterrestrial civilization?"

Well, duh... Hooks should be interesting, not something that is basically a truism. City lights usually indicate civilization, and if its on an alien planet, there is a small chance of, say, 100%, that it is extraterrestrial. Fram (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about not getting this spot on to start with. I see that I made the assumption that "if" the city lights were seen they would or could signal the existence of the extra-terrestrial life on the planet. Of course, there is no "if" in the original hook and not everyone would make that assumption. I have seen "(pictured)" or something like that, in many DYKs. I reviewed the picture but simply left it sitting there, forgetting, of course, that there are other DYKs on the page so it is important to specify which one the picture belongs to. I should have done better. I feel like a trout. Sorry to have put you to the extra work. I hope I have learned the lesson to be even more careful when reading the hook. The technical points are only part of it; the hook needs to be clear.
Either alternative is better than the proposed hook. That could be made acceptable with a few more words but it could get a little long. It is not up to me to choose, of course. Donner60 (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm waiting for a reviewer... Wer900 • talk 20:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The statement in the lead, that "the light from an extraterrestrial ecumenopolis ... may be detectable with hypertelescopes" is unsourced. The only other mention of hypertelescopes in the article refers to Colossus, which according to the source, detects heat, not light. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's okay. Colossus cannot detect "heat" per se, but detects infrared light. Wer900 • talk 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. It may be technically correct, but it's still misleading. I don't think most people would interpret "city lights" as meaning heat signatures. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Even so, it's not necessary that a hypertelescope only detect infrared light; visible light from planets is perfectly detectable as well, and may also be found in hypertelescopes. A hypertelescope is merely a very large telescope. Wer900 • talk 17:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That as may be, but per DYK rules, this needs to be specifically stated and sourced in the article. I'm not trying to be difficult; maybe you could propose a new hook that doesn't mention city lights? DoctorKubla (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
ALT3: ...that the atmospheric composition of an alien planet (artist's impression pictured) may signal the presence of an extraterrestrial civilization? Wer900 • talk 21:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, that works (I've struck the other hooks, for clarity). The image of alien city lights isn't really appropriate now, though. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Technosignature&oldid=1189651651"