This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I think the most famous part is where Kepler gives an account of how the earth would look as seen from the moon (phases etc.); he was pretty much the first to do something like that... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would like to expand the Science part, but I'm not sure how to do that. Do I specifically use what's in the book or do I use Kepler's notes to elaborate on each science point?Ender0051 (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Peer review of your article "Cell Theory" by a fellow student of History of Science course
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Oklahoma/History of Science from Antiquity to Newton (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
The “Plot summary” section is very well written and offers a good synopsis of Somnium. The Science” section could use some aesthetic improvement, however. The subsections “Levania”, “Privolva”, and “Subvolva” do not have enough content to warrant being broken up as opposed to being read as one section. You could either combine this information or expand on each subsection and make them more substantial. Also, I recommend adding citations in the “Science” section to add verifiability to your article. Overall, this is great work and with a little more tweaking, this could be a very well-developed, informative article. --IndigoDeberry (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply