Wikijunior talk:Solar System/Archive 3

Mercury
"...is a terrestrial planet" : 1 2 "...has visited Mercury" : Zuber, Maria T., Mercury, World Book Online Reference Center, 2004 (World Book, Inc.) 1 2 etc.

David Kernow 04:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been doing it as part of the proofreading process. I don't know if they'll make it to the print version, but it is nice to know where all the facts came from. It's helpful in convincing adults about the legitimacy of Wikijunior too. :)--Shanel 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Shanel; I agree entirely. In fact, as well as staying online, I think they ought to make it to the print version - with the usual caveat that URLs tend to date sooner rather than later. In both cases, though, I strongly suggest they're moved to an appendix module, for the sake of our target audience. Since you've already spent time creating them, I volunteer to undertake this task - but only if there's some consensus for it to be done. Thanks for your work! David Kernow 00:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I like the idea of moving them to an appendix. It's less clutter, and it doesn't look as "scary" to kids. I'll start a vote on this talk page to see if everyone agrees.--Shanel 23:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The footnotes were added during the process of fact-checking and verification. It was the only way to see what facts had been checked and which had not.  At the time, we were hoping that someone would come along with a way we could switch the footnotes on and off, so that they would be in the source text, but off in the printed version, and in a "completed online" version.  Or else printed in an "endnotes" section.  Still hoping. --SV Resolution (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Any target audience trials?
Has anyone tried giving a module or two to someone in our target audience to see what they make of it? How wide an age-range is our target audience meant to be?

I'm wondering whether a number of systematic features of the book - for instance, using descriptions such as "terrestrial" - might puzzle younger members of our audience unduly.

David Kernow 05:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There's been no testing by kids as far as I know. Wikijunior is meant for 7-12 year olds. There is a glossary, but I don't think it's complete. That, and it has to be proofread to make sure the definitions are kid-friendly too--Shanel 05:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In which case I'm also wondering just how far numbers (especially those using decimals) and units should be part of the main text, rather than only in say infoboxes or the like. I can imagine not everyone who might enjoy reading this book is as educated or confident with numbers and units as the book currently suggests (to me, at least). I'm not meaning to suggest the book should be "dumbed down" but rather that there's more division between words and numbers etc.

My niece is a little too young to try a test-read at present, but perhaps you or anyone else might know some 7-12 year olds only too willing to tell us what they think...?

Thanks, David Kernow 00:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I could, thoeretically, see if my old elementary school teachers are interested seeing it and using it, prehapes for a lesson or 2, in there class. However I have some doubts that such a goal is possible cause it require vasts amounts of ink and paper to print enoug for the 30+ people. Prehapes I could simply print out the section that relates to the perticular lesson. Also I am surronded by young neighbors (like 4,6,7, 7, 8, 10, 10, 12 year old people (yeah quite a range)) so prehapes I could show it to them and tell me how they like it. N1person 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a perfect opportunity, N1person, so please go for it. Yes, I'd print out only one or two modules – ones that may be too simple or too sophisticated in content and/or tone – and see what people made of them. Some idea of what's too simple or too sophisticated for young people these days would be great. Thanks in advance, David Kernow 13:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know any young kids, and my brother and I are too old (15 and 17). I've been trying to round numbers as I proofread so there aren't any decimal places, and avoid words like "silicate" and "organic compunds." --Shanel 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)



The #1 complaint that I had (in an admittedly very politically conservative area) was the images of some of the greek gods in their various states of undress. The raping of Europa by Zeus in particular was considered rather offensive, even this from my perspective it is classical art. The image of Neptune was also considered borderline pornographic. Since the images of the various Greek dieties is hardly even necessary, I am considering just removing them altogether (even though I was the one who added them in). There is a mythology component to the planets that is useful in a historical context, but we don't need to be an art history book either.

I've also been looking at other intro to the Solar System books that are commercially published, and now that I'm working on this book here I can see so many factual errors in those other books. One very blatant error I saw in one book was a mixup between Phobos and Deimos on the discussion of Mars. This is one area where having many contributors and the editorial style of a Wiki can have a huge improvement over other similar projects. Indeed the factual material was one of the areas where people were most impressed when I showed the book to them.

In terms of physical publishing, make sure that the images you use for the main content also look reasonable in Black & White. Color publishing is still incredibly expensive unless you have a huge print run, and even then it still costs more. I've published this book with a small printing company near where I live, and the cost was somewhat reasonable as long as the bulk of the images were all in B&W. The cover I did in color though, and that turned out to be incredibly stunning. It certainly makes a splash as cover art. --Rob Horning 14:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that he nude images of the gods could cause problems. Personally, I like them, but I am a pretty liberal minded parent. These books, whether on paper or online, need to be acceptable to a wide audience. My area is fairly conservative, surrounded by extremely conservative smaller towns. I am sure that those pictures, no matter how non-offensive they are to those of us with open minds, would get this book, and possibly all of Wikijunior on the schools "blocked" list. While banning "real" books is seen as draconian, many of these groups will not hesitate to ban online content at the slightest hint of an issue. I do not believe in bowing down to that sort of pressure, but by starting out with "acceptable" material the conservatives will start having to respect the medium more and censor less in the future.Starchildmom 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Being blocked would be advertizement we couldn't buy ;). That said, I don't see the need for the pictures, would kids who are interested in astronomy, be interested in a random depiction of a religious figure; or did I just read too much Sagan as a kid? -- Jeandré, 2006-04-05t17:40z

I'm a kid (11), and I'll read it and see if anything is out of my range. --Sam T. Jazzhands 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything too advanced. --Sam T. Jazzhands 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Our Solar System
I will finish the Copy Edit for Our Solar System by tonight, October 30!!! Glad this project is finnaly maturing!

The end of this copy edit will complete the proofing on that page

I wrote the parents introduction on the intro page, leave your thoughts on it please! -Basejumper123 Whoops, sorry (and its done now)

Woo hoo! Mind telling us who you are, stranger? :)--Shanel 19:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please help with Comets module
Currently, I am the only person working on the Comets module. Anyone interested in fact-checking or referencing this page please see its proofreading plan and sign up for a task. (God knows my work can't go unchecked for long...) --Basejumper123 2 November, 2005

Reference style
I've noticed that the way SV and Basejumper do their references is a bit iffereent than how I did mine. Each of their references has its own number, but mine are grouped together.For example, if I found two references for the length of a day on the moon, reference #24 would be both URLs. Should I split them apart?--Shanel 21:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Up to you!
as long as everybody can read and understand it, then i really doubt that it'll make any difference, but its up to you of course. -Basejumper123 23:50 (UTC) November 2, 2005


 * I suppose, but it annoya me. I want to be like everyone else! :P--Shanel 12:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I group two references to the same fact together, too. I am not totally consistent.  --SV Resolution 17:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In appendix?
David Kernow has suggested that we move the references to an appendix, and has volunteered to do so. So, lets have a vote:

Online only.

 * 1) — Jeandré, 2005-11-19t20:16z. I don't think a book for kids should have it in the book itself, a link to a page online with all the references would be better.


 * 1) Starchildmom 03:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC) The way they currently are is much too confusing for kids. The references need to be separated from the main text.

Online only.


Also, we should probably decide on a consistent reference style. I volunteer to do this. Should it be:

Number each reference individually

 * 1) — Jeandré, 2005-11-19t20:16z

How was it discovered?
I have also been removing the "How was it discovered?" sections. I removed them because anything before Uranus was known by the ancients, so that section would end up being repetitive. Plus, it was missing in most modules. In fact, I don't think it was even one of the oroginal questions. If anyone objects let me know.--Shanel 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Shanel, I would leave those sections in. I'm an elementary school media specialist (and hope to become more active here), and I know that students in the 4th grade who are assigned this topic are always asked to find out how the planet was discovered. The fact that almost all of them were known to the ancients may seem repetitive, but it's an important fact that should be attached to each planet.--Dale 27 November 2005


 * Ok, thanks. I'll put them back in then.--Shanel 20:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

two html versions
What is the difference between the two html versions? Which one should I edit? (this unsigned entry by Gbleem 18:43, December 22 2005 (UTC))


 * Not knowing any better, I'd say edit the version on the website rather than extracted html documents. David Kernow 04:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason why there is "two version" under the HTML distributions is because there is a version written specifically for the Beck Foundation and another version that has the full content of this website. The concern was that the full version would have far too much content to fit within the "48 page" restriction that was brandied about... and even removing the extra moons of the outer planets and Mars is still too much in this regard.  I was the editor/author who made the two versions here, and all that you find in there is a transclusion of the individual articles that are also found immediately off from the main page.  By clicking on the full HTML version, you can download the whole Wikibook at once and save it with your browser.  I've done that to create the PDF version of the Wikibook as a way to simplify the process of compiling the book.  You can still click on the "edit" sections in the full version as well, and either one will allow you to edit the same content in that regard.  If you click on the "edit this page" tab, it only allows you to edit the transclusion list.  Unless there is some new major sections (like adding some major asteroids or comets, or some additional moons of Saturn), this is not going to really need to be done.  Changes in the individual articles will be updated automatically in the full versions.  --Rob Horning 04:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitals
Is there a reason why sometimes "sun" and "moon" are written with a capital S/M? I couldn't discover any consistency. Fruggo 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a sun versus the Sun, and a moon versus the Moon. In other words, any random sun or moon gets lowercase, but our Sun and Moon get capitalized.  &mdash; Laura Scudder | Talk 10:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)