Talk:Afterglow
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Afterglow 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 |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added picture
editThough WikiPedia is not a collection of images, I believe my added image improves the encyclopedia by giving a better view of what afterglow looks like. CindyT/P/C 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Remove references to alpenglow
editI left some remarks on the talk pages for both Alpenglow and Belt of Venus, so please see those as well if you're interested.. The use of alpenglow here isn't right, and the article is quite confusing as well. One can mention Rayleigh Scattering without all this confusing stuff about high energy and high frequency light, and there is no backscattering in alpenglow, as I described in the other talk pages. Lastly, what is with the mention of the planet Venus being the brightest "star" visible opposite to the belt of venus? That's just nonsense.. Venus can be visible or not, depending on the position of its orbit about the sun. The Belt of Venus is there every day, at the anti-solar point, but Venus need not be. Not to mention it is already confusing to try and make sure these two uses of "venus" are distinguishable, there is no need to bring the planet into the discussion incorrectly. Unless anyone objects, I would like to take out all of the references to alpenglow, do a bit of a better job explaining that this has nothing to do with the planet venus other than that they were named after the same deity, and make the language a little more comfortable to read. Thoughts? Comments? HappyDa (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)