Talk:Guillermo Haro
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Untitled
editThis reference http://www.adass.org/adass/proceedings/adass03/P7-7/ says that the dimensions of the Tonantzintla Schmidt are: Correcting plate 66.4 cm, mirror 76.20 cm. Any Mexican astronomers out there who can confirm? Skeptic2 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, the syntax in the second sentence is problematic. For clarity, I think you should change the second sentence from this: "He was the first person elected to the Royal Astronomical Society from Mexico."
To this: "He was the first person from Mexico elected to the Royal Astronomical Society." 47.198.27.145 (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Google Doodle
editThe subject of this article is today's Google Doodle... This is unfortunate, as it is one of the worst sourced bio articles I have seen, and it is likely to get thousands (tens of thousands?) of pageviews today. It was already full of CN tags when I looked, prompting me to dive further into the few citations there. I found that most all of the few citations were just dead or not RS (the main one was IMDB!). After removing these, adding more CN in-line tags, (and a page banner as well), there is virtually no verifiable material left. The one bio citation left is not on line (a book), so I cannot even verify anything that way. This could be a totally bogus article and there would be no way to prove otherwise at it stands. As the subject is Mexican, possibly the Spanish version of the article can be used to improve this one by someone fluent in the language? RobP (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I see that the Forbes article is now being cited for detailed info beyond its original use in this article, which was as a reference for the Google Doodle. I am concerned that the info in the article was merely copied from THIS basically unsourced article - and so using Forbes as a reference is circular. RobP (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've added several smaller sources, however info on his career needs to expanded. I don't have any more time to dive into it. If it helps anyone, the most complete source I found is La modernización de la ciencia en México: el caso de los astrónomos. It's detailed, but there seems to be some entanglement of the relevant info. Xochiztli (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Why does it start by identifying him as Mexican right away? And was Copernicus' Polish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:C200:AF:8D63:4496:FE6C:7BD6 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Someone removed the Wikipedia page for the "Haro-Chavira" comet. I can only ASSUME that the reason why the page was removed was because it lacked proper sourcing. If so, does that editor realize that there now is no reference to the comet on Wikipedia (and this article barely touches it)? So HOW THE H*** CAN ANYONE FIND OUT WHO CHAVIRA WAS? Sometimes Wikipedia's rules are too stringent to the point that they eliminate information2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5560:1889:FD95:84E (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)ES