by alter-ego » Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:16 pm
zloq wrote:I don't mind obvious typos and grammar slips, but I think conceptual and quantitative errors in the APOD caption itself should be fixed ...
I agree with you that getting the content correct outweighs grammatical errors, at least most of the time. There is no doubt in my mind that the editors would agree that APOD descriptions ought to be, first, technically correct. It's interesting that you bring this up here as this APOD appears incorrect on two technical points:
- - The length of the lunar trail is ≈4°and corresponds to 20 minutes of time. As I read the description, about 1.5 hours of images comprise this APOD which can't be. There may be 500 images in this composite, but not 1.5 hours, or Oshin may have taken 1.5 hours of pictures, but the APOD does not show 1.5 hours of pictures.
- Second, the description implies the eclipse was "already in progress" as the moon rose over the mountains. Actually for Oshin, the moon technically entered totality about about 15 minutes after the first picture (image closest to the mountains). Totality began when the moon reached ~7° altitude, which you can see this location where the whitish sliver (moon's lower right) disappears. The picture FoV ≈ 15°x 10°, which is consistent with where the eclipse looks reddest.
Who's to say how these statements, that I at least have interpreted as errors, got passed the editors? Reasons could be related to language subtlies in translation, or maybe a typo that could get missed unless the image is analyzed carefully? Certainly, the editors aren't cross checking every description against every image to verify correctness. Some inconsistencies are obvious, others reqire a more detailed view that take time to clarify. I personally enjoy digging into "mystery" details requiring some detective work to sort out. I don't expect the editors to do this, but no doubt they want the APOD to be factual and accurate as possible within the allowable space. This APOD may be an example of all the above, I don't know.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I think the editors are doing the best job they can in the time they have. What I've pointed out in no way takes away the experience or the creativity of the image. It's just for me, the description did not add up, and with zloq's comment, I decided to post this with complete respect for the editors and artist.
[quote="zloq"]I don't mind obvious typos and grammar slips, but I think conceptual and quantitative errors in the APOD caption itself should be fixed ... [/quote]
I agree with you that getting the content correct outweighs grammatical errors, at least most of the time. There is no doubt in my mind that the editors would agree that APOD descriptions ought to be, first, technically correct. It's interesting that you bring this up here as this APOD appears incorrect on two technical points:
[list]- The length of the lunar trail is ≈4°and corresponds to 20 minutes of time. As I read the description, about 1.5 hours of images comprise this APOD which can't be. There may be 500 images in this composite, but not 1.5 hours, or Oshin may have taken 1.5 hours of pictures, but the APOD does not show 1.5 hours of pictures.
- Second, the description implies the eclipse was "already in progress" as the moon rose over the mountains. Actually for Oshin, the moon technically entered totality about about 15 minutes after the first picture (image closest to the mountains). Totality began when the moon reached ~7° altitude, which you can see this location where the whitish sliver (moon's lower right) disappears. The picture FoV ≈ 15°x 10°, which is consistent with where the eclipse looks reddest. [/list]
Who's to say how these statements, that I at least have interpreted as errors, got passed the editors? Reasons could be related to language subtlies in translation, or maybe a typo that could get missed unless the image is analyzed carefully? Certainly, the editors aren't cross checking every description against every image to verify correctness. Some inconsistencies are obvious, others reqire a more detailed view that take time to clarify. I personally enjoy digging into "mystery" details requiring some detective work to sort out. I don't expect the editors to do this, but no doubt they want the APOD to be factual and accurate as possible within the allowable space. This APOD may be an example of all the above, I don't know.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I think the editors are doing the best job they can in the time they have. What I've pointed out in no way takes away the experience or the creativity of the image. It's just for me, the description did not add up, and with zloq's comment, I decided to post this with complete respect for the editors and artist.