Talk:Solar eclipse of July 2, 2019
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | A news item involving Solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 July 2019. |  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Visibility in the Pacific
editIf anyone has info about any remote island in the Pacific that are in the path, please edit them into the visibility category. 😀
Wekpidea (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Gravitational lensing
editIt is said that there were scientists in Chile watching the eclipse. Did they again see the stars on wrong places due to the Sun's gravitational lensing like in the eclipse of 1919? 212.186.0.174 (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Oeno Island
editOeno Island is uninhabited, but is visited occasionally by the small population of nearby Pitcairn. Since Pitcairn was not in the path of totality for this eclipse but Oeno was, I wonder if any Pitcairners made the trip? The sources I've seen that mention totality for Oeno don't state this, but perhaps something will appear online if anyone was there. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Chronology in lead
editThe second paragraph of the lead summary makes no sense: Another total solar eclipse will cross this region on December 14, 2020 531 days later, and 355 days after that occurs a solar eclipse in the same lunar node as this eclipse, on June 21, 2020.
355 days after December 14, 2020, is not June 21, 2020. Could someone please correct this? — Gorthian (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Gorthian: I've made a quick edit to fix the glaring error but I agree that the article, especially the lede, could do with some more work. Wham2001 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)