Starship Asterisk*

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.

alter-ego wrote: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.

Yes, this is confusing. My guess is that he shot 500 pictures over 1.5 hours, and then cropped the result. But it's just a guess... and ideally guessing would not be required.

• - 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.

I don't think anything is wrong here. The eclipse was in progress when the Moon rose. The caption is perfectly correct in this regard. That it wasn't total when it rose isn't an issue, and I don't read the caption as suggesting that.

As you say, there are lots of ways errors can get introduced. I don't think they are very common, however, and when they occur, somebody here tends to pick up on them pretty quickly. If so, they usually get fixed. But if enough time goes by, I think they tend not to.

Chris Peterson wrote:

alter-ego wrote:

• - 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.

I don't think anything is wrong here. The eclipse was in progress when the Moon rose. The caption is perfectly correct in this regard. That it wasn't total when it rose isn't an issue, and I don't read the caption as suggesting that.

The importance of the second technicality I mentioned is indeed less then my first, but I have to disagree with you. Unless there is some subtle semantics here that I'm not appreciating, instead of reading: "A total lunar eclipse was already in progress", a more correct statement would be: "The lunar eclipse was already in progess with totality soon to occur." This just my opinion. In the world of editing astronomical content for technical accuracy, you might be right, but I certainly read it differently.

alter-ego wrote:The importance of the second technicality I mentioned is indeed less then my first, but I have to disagree with you. Unless there is some subtle semantics here that I'm not appreciating, instead of reading: "A total lunar eclipse was already in progress", a more correct statement would be: "The lunar eclipse was already in progess with totality soon to occur." This just my opinion. In the world of editing astronomical content for technical accuracy, you might be right, but I certainly read it differently.

Either strikes me as fine. The event was a total eclipse, even when the Moon wasn't totally eclipsed. A total eclipse starts with a partial phase, proceeds to totality, and then finishes with a partial phase. I don't see anything wrong with the wording that was used- even though I like yours a little better.