Talk:Maria Clara Eimmart

Plans for Editing

I plan to edit this article because Maria Clara Eimmart was an important woman in science and especially in the artistic representation of natural history. This article is severely underdeveloped and there is more information that can be included on this topic. I think it is very important that women are better represented in science and that their extensive contributions are not ignored. When I am done editing, there will be more information on her life as well as her accomplishments. I will also translate the information that is available on the German Wiki page for Maria Clara Eimmart. Additionally, I will include the intricate picture of the moon that she is famous for painting. Osbo6401 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You may want to include the sources when you write "Some sources claim Eimmart published a work under her father’s name in 1701." That is my only critique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelBecket (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:SamuelBecket that you could include the sources that you mention. You said that most of her work is not in existence anymore so I can see how it would be hard to find more examples of her contributions to science. That is most likely why this article was a stub in the first place, because there just isn't much that exists for anyone to write about. Given the amount of information available I think the additions you made to the article are pretty good, although finding some more sources that tell about her life, her husband, the observatory, and her works and contributions would give us a better understanding of her life. Khan ali10 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that you've done a really good job expanding this article considering it was completely blank when you found it. I agree with the above to include the citation, but other than that it looks really good to me. If you want to add anything else I would just try to go into more detail about her illustrations, if you can find anymore information on them. good job! Ashblackburn (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I fully agree with your aims. On her wonderful lunar image, there is an interesting comparison with Cassini's image made about the same time. In terms of positioning features, Cassini's is the more accurate - but it is stylised, it doesnt actually look like what one sees when one looks at the moon through a telescope. That is what is remarkable about Eimmart's she depicted what she actually saw. In other areas (her eclipse painting being a good example), knowing that she recorded what she actually saw is very important scientifically. On a similar scientific point, Clara Eimmart also recorded in another painting (sadly now badly water damaged) the nightside lunar limb glow which was (at the time and later) very controversial as it implied a lunar atmosphere. It was thought to be an error by modern scientists until the Apollo astronauts saw it in transient events, caused by electrostatic lifting of lunar dust high above the surface. Again she recorded what she actually saw. I can supply more details if it helps. I look forward to the edit

Thanks. MessageInABottle 21:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelLockwood (talk • contribs)

Critiques

Hey Kelly, I just wanted to let you know that I reviewed your article as part of our class assignment. I found it very well written and informative and I didn't notice any major problems right off hand that need to be changed. If you get the chance add a picture or two to help enhance the look of the article. King0979 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Very well organized so far. I couldn't pick much of anything out about the article that really stuck out that needed to be fixed. The only think I could recommend really is maybe adding a portrait to the page. I really like the section with phases of the moon you added. The background give a great introduction to give you a feel for who this person is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcoroiu (talk • contribs) 02:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maria Clara Eimmart. 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/20140326093610/http://www.naa.net/ain/personen/show.asp?ID=39 to http://www.naa.net/ain/personen/show.asp?ID=39
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325190603/http://naa.net/ain/personen/show.asp?ID=37 to http://www.naa.net/ain/personen/show.asp?ID=37

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) 10:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Scheibinger quote

In the Maria Clara Eimmart article someone posted the following quote from Londa Scheibinger’s “The Mind has no Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science”

Schiebinger states that some sources claim Eimmart published a work under her father’s name in 1701, the Ichnographia nova contemplationum de sole.

Unfortunately, they left off an important part of the quote. What Scheibinger actually wrote:

A few sources claim that in 1701 [Maria] Eimmart published a work on the sun, Ichnographia nova contemplationum de sole, under her father’s name, but there is no evidence that this was her work.

She adds an endnote to this:

See, e.g., J. C. Poggendorff, Handwörterbuch zur Geschichte der exacten Wissenschaften (Leipzig, 1863), vol. 1, p. 65. Eighteenth-century lexicons that list Einmart’s work in great detail attribute the Ichnographia to her father. See Doppelmayr, Historische Nachricht p. 126; Georg Will, Nürnbegerisches Gelehrten-Lexicon, oder Beschreibung aller Nürnbergischen Gelehrten beyderley Geschlectes (Nuremberg, 1755–1758).

Given the rest of the original Schiebinger quote and the endnote I have removed the partial quote from the article. Thony C. (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)