This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christiaan Huygens 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 |
![]() | Christiaan Huygens is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Christiaan Huygens has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In case anyone else was wondering, here is a page and audio clip describing how to pronounce Huygens' name.
Excised rubbish:
It is Galileo that is credited with finding that pendula have (almost) constant period; Huygens quantised the tiny dependency on amplitude and suggested a means of correcting it. (I believe it was a buffered ribbon suspension, but check his book to be sure. For the typical idealisation the bob must trace a cycloid -- see tautochrone -- and the buffers are the evolute, another cycloid.) It's of mostly theoretical interest because serious pendulum clocks are contrived to keep a small and constant amplitude, and real pendula are hardly the easily-analysed ideal; their bobs rotate, their suspensions are stiff and stretchy...
Huygens' most lasting contribution to horology may be a pulley arrangement used to maintain torque during winding. Kwantus 19:35, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
I've replaced the color portrait with one that is known to be public domain. The old one was way better, though. If anyone can find out the relevant legal information (and maybe locate a better reproduction), it would be great to have the color one.-- Bcrowell 03:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Is the lack of a link to Huygens' principle deliberate?
It seems the images inserted just after the LIFE section name cause the [edit] tags to be placed bunched up in odd places. At least, when I take out the images the [edit] tags appear in the proper place. I have no idea what is going on. Perhaps someone who has run into this problem before can fix it. Vantelimus ( talk) 05:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
According to this article
In 1673 he [Huygens] published his mathematical analysis of pendulums... It had been discovered that pendulums are not isochronous for swings; that is, their period depends on the width of swing.
However, according to Marin Mersenne
He [Mersenne] also performed extensive experiments to determine the acceleration of falling objects by comparing them with the swing of pendulums, reported in his Cogitata Physico-Mathematica in 1644. He was the first to measure the length of the seconds pendulum, that is a pendulum whose swing takes one second, and the first to observe that a pendulum's swings are not isochronous as Galileo thought, but that large swings take longer than small swings.
The dates suggest that Mersenne was first.
Top.Squark ( talk) 14:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
According to this article
He [Huygens] also invented numerous other devices, including a 31 tone to the octave keyboard instrument which made use of his discovery of 31 equal temperament.
According to 31 equal temperament
Nicola Vicentino produced a 31-step keyboard instrument, the Archicembalo, in 1555, but it was not until 1666 that Lemme Rossi first proposed an equal temperament of this order. Shortly thereafter, having discovered it independently, famed scientist Christiaan Huygens wrote about it also.
According to Lemme Rossi
Lemme Rossi... was the first to publish a discussion of 31 equal temperament, the division of the octave into 31 equal parts, in his Sistema musico, ouero Musica speculativa doue SI spiegano i più celebri sistemi di tutti i tre generi of 1666. This slightly predates the publication of the same idea by the eminent scientist Christiaan Huyghens.
My guess is that the later two articles are more accurate than this one, but none of the 3 cite a source on this
Top.Squark ( talk) 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the name of the force discovered by Huygens be the Centrifugal force, rather than the Centripetal force, since he called it a vis centrifuga, and it dealt with the expansion of the rotation radius. WFPM ( talk) 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The intro describes Huygens as (among other things) a writer of science fiction, but I don't see anything in the article that substantiates this. He did write a book presenting "conjectures" (his word) about inhabitants of other planets, but that book is not science fiction, any more than the WP page Extraterrestrial life is a work of science fiction. Perhaps he did other books which are science fiction, but for now I'm inclined to delete that statement from the intro. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
What the book cited says is that, probably due to the weight of René Descartes's other accomplishments, there was a school of research based on his physics. He and his followers contributed, to some extent, directly to physics. Partly from other sources, René Descartes' main contributions to physics were in mathematics and in the supporting and guiding philosophy, rather than in physics itself. He said cogito ergo sum, which has been generalized to the anthropic principle that a a scientist may assume that the universe is such that it supports intelligent life. He advanced the idea of searching for simple laws of physics. David R. Ingham ( talk) 04:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This section seems to be poorly written and I have great reservations about the wording of this section, especially the last few line which are unreferenced. The referenced section cites a book by a Margaret Jacob. I looked for a google books preview to see what was actually presented but a preview was not available. The wording in the section is shoddy and seems to be a point-of-view edit with a severe lack of quotes for supposed lines of reasoning of Huygen; either he explicitly wrote what has been said in the section, or it didn't happen and is conjecture. There is nothing specifically in quotation marks, and it seems presumptuous to state those sentences as if it were Huygens line of reasoning.
Does anyone have a copy of this book or post or a small snippet of what it says to confirm what has been entered in the section? Veritas Blue ( talk) 11:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Clifford Dobell in the book " Little animals" (1932) writes: "Christiaan Huygens never himself published any serious contributions to protozoology: and the records of his own observations, which were made in an attempt to repeat Leeuwenhoek's experiments, remained in manuscript and unknown until only a few years ago. Consequently, his private work had no influence whatsoever upon the progress of protozoology. Had it been published in his lifetime, it would have assured him a place in the very forefront of the founders of the science".
George F. Simmons in his book " Calculus Gems: Brief Lives and Memorable Mathematics" writes: "Among other things, he explained how microorganisms develop in water previously sterilized by boiling. He suggested that these creatures are small enough to float through the air and reproduce when they fall into the water, a speculation that was proved correct by Louis Paster two centuries later".
Maybe it's worth a mention? (since people mention Gauss discovery of the possibility of non-Euclidean geometries, even though it was also not published)
Or maybe it's not relevant?
I don't know... Just wanted to share :) Pedro Listel ( talk) 05:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The article says cycloid, but it seems like a catenary (it's also the description in commons and seems to match the descriptions in John Bukowski's article " Christiaan Huygens and the Problem of the Hanging Chain").
Pedro Listel ( talk) 05:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
For the Gutenberg edition and the 1912 English edition of the Treatise on Light, the following errata list may be useful:
(I refrain from directly editing the article, due to a c.o.i.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.27.252 ( talk) 09:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
--- Minimal response made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.83.18 ( talk) 09:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Christiaan Huygens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Christiaan Huygens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://frank.harvard.edu/~paulh/misc/huygens.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
What are those wrong pronunciations doing here? /ˈɦœyɣə(n)s/ is not the (so-called) Dutch pronunciation, it's the pronunciation. Do approximations have a place in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upquark ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
What is the source of the claim "As a rationalist, he refused to believe in an immanent supreme being, and could not accept the Christian faith of his upbringing."? I found this article https://www.gewina-studium.nl/articles/10.18352/studium.9427/ which claims (on the base of Huygens's correspondence and his book Cosmotheoros) that Huygens's religious views was unorthodox, but "the concept of God was actually a crucial element in his understanding of the world".
The following was added to the lead by a new user.
NASA named the lander Huygens which landed on Titan, a moon of the planet Saturn after the renowned physicist.
Should that be in the article? How? Where? Reference? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 18:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
All looks fairly good.
Huygens's principle in 1818." is not in the body
, Louis XIV, Royal Society, analytical geometry, Hofwijck, Archimedes, center of gravity, Grégoire de Saint-Vincent, approximation of the quadrature, Frans van Schooten , Cartesian, Henry Oldenburg, Journal des Sçavans, Galileo, Lodewijk Huygens, pendulm, cycloid, caustic, catenary, balance spring, Robert Hooke, Académie des sciences, Iceland spar, evolutes, Huygens–Fresnel principle, physical optics, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Leibniz, Newton, analytic geometry, mathematical physics, double refraction,
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.(Hate that one.)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7: I've worked through your feedback and addressed most of the issues you encountered, with the exception of the Notes section. Given the deadline (7 days is tomorrow) and the amount of work involved, I won't be able to complete this section on time. Do note that most of these are legacy references that preceded my editing work. If I can get an extension, I promise I will work on them and make sure they are up to par.
Here are the changes made:
Lead:
Body Typos:
References
Thank you again for taking the time to review this article. Guillermind81 ( talk) 00:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
05:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Guillermind81 ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall:
Article meets eligibility criteria. Was recently promoted to GA. I will lean heavily on the due-diligence done during the GA promotion process. Taking the hook citation from the reference. The image is used in the article and looks reasonable. I find the hook interesting, though it is a matter of personal preference. I do not see a QPQ. Please share that once done.
Ktin (
talk)
20:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Using a technique equivalent to Richardson extrapolation, Huygens approximated the centre of gravity of a segment of a circle by the centre of the gravity of a segment of a parabola, and thus finding an approximation of the quadrature; with this he was able to refine the inequalities between the area of the circle and those of the inscribed and circumscribed polygons used in the calculations of π. From these theorems, Huygens obtained two set of values, the first between 3.1415926 and 3.1415927, and the second between 3.1415926538 and 3.1415926533. Huygens also showed that the same approximation with segments of the parabola, in the case of the hyperbola, yields a quick and simple method to calculate logarithms. He appended a collection of solutions to classical problems at the end of the work under the title Illustrium Quorundam Problematum Constructiones (Construction of some illustrious problems).Please can you re-examine this text? I think once done we are almost there. Ktin ( talk) 03:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
To T:DYK/P3 without image
A recent article came out about the eyesight of Huygens as well as his equations on telescopes. Might be worth mentioning somewhere? This article is pretty well written so I do not dare to just cram it in.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2022.0054 https://phys.org/news/2023-03-eyeglasses-prescription-christiaan-huygens-years.html 161.72.23.153 ( talk) 20:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Did Huygens foresaw the intentional benefit – albeit uncomfortable for the rest of us – between military research mixed with constant wars and [civilian] research? 2A02:2F01:6B04:4300:15F8:33ED:45E1:7D74 ( talk) 00:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christiaan Huygens 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 |
![]() | Christiaan Huygens is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Christiaan Huygens has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In case anyone else was wondering, here is a page and audio clip describing how to pronounce Huygens' name.
Excised rubbish:
It is Galileo that is credited with finding that pendula have (almost) constant period; Huygens quantised the tiny dependency on amplitude and suggested a means of correcting it. (I believe it was a buffered ribbon suspension, but check his book to be sure. For the typical idealisation the bob must trace a cycloid -- see tautochrone -- and the buffers are the evolute, another cycloid.) It's of mostly theoretical interest because serious pendulum clocks are contrived to keep a small and constant amplitude, and real pendula are hardly the easily-analysed ideal; their bobs rotate, their suspensions are stiff and stretchy...
Huygens' most lasting contribution to horology may be a pulley arrangement used to maintain torque during winding. Kwantus 19:35, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
I've replaced the color portrait with one that is known to be public domain. The old one was way better, though. If anyone can find out the relevant legal information (and maybe locate a better reproduction), it would be great to have the color one.-- Bcrowell 03:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Is the lack of a link to Huygens' principle deliberate?
It seems the images inserted just after the LIFE section name cause the [edit] tags to be placed bunched up in odd places. At least, when I take out the images the [edit] tags appear in the proper place. I have no idea what is going on. Perhaps someone who has run into this problem before can fix it. Vantelimus ( talk) 05:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
According to this article
In 1673 he [Huygens] published his mathematical analysis of pendulums... It had been discovered that pendulums are not isochronous for swings; that is, their period depends on the width of swing.
However, according to Marin Mersenne
He [Mersenne] also performed extensive experiments to determine the acceleration of falling objects by comparing them with the swing of pendulums, reported in his Cogitata Physico-Mathematica in 1644. He was the first to measure the length of the seconds pendulum, that is a pendulum whose swing takes one second, and the first to observe that a pendulum's swings are not isochronous as Galileo thought, but that large swings take longer than small swings.
The dates suggest that Mersenne was first.
Top.Squark ( talk) 14:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
According to this article
He [Huygens] also invented numerous other devices, including a 31 tone to the octave keyboard instrument which made use of his discovery of 31 equal temperament.
According to 31 equal temperament
Nicola Vicentino produced a 31-step keyboard instrument, the Archicembalo, in 1555, but it was not until 1666 that Lemme Rossi first proposed an equal temperament of this order. Shortly thereafter, having discovered it independently, famed scientist Christiaan Huygens wrote about it also.
According to Lemme Rossi
Lemme Rossi... was the first to publish a discussion of 31 equal temperament, the division of the octave into 31 equal parts, in his Sistema musico, ouero Musica speculativa doue SI spiegano i più celebri sistemi di tutti i tre generi of 1666. This slightly predates the publication of the same idea by the eminent scientist Christiaan Huyghens.
My guess is that the later two articles are more accurate than this one, but none of the 3 cite a source on this
Top.Squark ( talk) 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the name of the force discovered by Huygens be the Centrifugal force, rather than the Centripetal force, since he called it a vis centrifuga, and it dealt with the expansion of the rotation radius. WFPM ( talk) 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The intro describes Huygens as (among other things) a writer of science fiction, but I don't see anything in the article that substantiates this. He did write a book presenting "conjectures" (his word) about inhabitants of other planets, but that book is not science fiction, any more than the WP page Extraterrestrial life is a work of science fiction. Perhaps he did other books which are science fiction, but for now I'm inclined to delete that statement from the intro. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
What the book cited says is that, probably due to the weight of René Descartes's other accomplishments, there was a school of research based on his physics. He and his followers contributed, to some extent, directly to physics. Partly from other sources, René Descartes' main contributions to physics were in mathematics and in the supporting and guiding philosophy, rather than in physics itself. He said cogito ergo sum, which has been generalized to the anthropic principle that a a scientist may assume that the universe is such that it supports intelligent life. He advanced the idea of searching for simple laws of physics. David R. Ingham ( talk) 04:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This section seems to be poorly written and I have great reservations about the wording of this section, especially the last few line which are unreferenced. The referenced section cites a book by a Margaret Jacob. I looked for a google books preview to see what was actually presented but a preview was not available. The wording in the section is shoddy and seems to be a point-of-view edit with a severe lack of quotes for supposed lines of reasoning of Huygen; either he explicitly wrote what has been said in the section, or it didn't happen and is conjecture. There is nothing specifically in quotation marks, and it seems presumptuous to state those sentences as if it were Huygens line of reasoning.
Does anyone have a copy of this book or post or a small snippet of what it says to confirm what has been entered in the section? Veritas Blue ( talk) 11:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Clifford Dobell in the book " Little animals" (1932) writes: "Christiaan Huygens never himself published any serious contributions to protozoology: and the records of his own observations, which were made in an attempt to repeat Leeuwenhoek's experiments, remained in manuscript and unknown until only a few years ago. Consequently, his private work had no influence whatsoever upon the progress of protozoology. Had it been published in his lifetime, it would have assured him a place in the very forefront of the founders of the science".
George F. Simmons in his book " Calculus Gems: Brief Lives and Memorable Mathematics" writes: "Among other things, he explained how microorganisms develop in water previously sterilized by boiling. He suggested that these creatures are small enough to float through the air and reproduce when they fall into the water, a speculation that was proved correct by Louis Paster two centuries later".
Maybe it's worth a mention? (since people mention Gauss discovery of the possibility of non-Euclidean geometries, even though it was also not published)
Or maybe it's not relevant?
I don't know... Just wanted to share :) Pedro Listel ( talk) 05:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The article says cycloid, but it seems like a catenary (it's also the description in commons and seems to match the descriptions in John Bukowski's article " Christiaan Huygens and the Problem of the Hanging Chain").
Pedro Listel ( talk) 05:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
For the Gutenberg edition and the 1912 English edition of the Treatise on Light, the following errata list may be useful:
(I refrain from directly editing the article, due to a c.o.i.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.27.252 ( talk) 09:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
--- Minimal response made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.83.18 ( talk) 09:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Christiaan Huygens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Christiaan Huygens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://frank.harvard.edu/~paulh/misc/huygens.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
What are those wrong pronunciations doing here? /ˈɦœyɣə(n)s/ is not the (so-called) Dutch pronunciation, it's the pronunciation. Do approximations have a place in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upquark ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
What is the source of the claim "As a rationalist, he refused to believe in an immanent supreme being, and could not accept the Christian faith of his upbringing."? I found this article https://www.gewina-studium.nl/articles/10.18352/studium.9427/ which claims (on the base of Huygens's correspondence and his book Cosmotheoros) that Huygens's religious views was unorthodox, but "the concept of God was actually a crucial element in his understanding of the world".
The following was added to the lead by a new user.
NASA named the lander Huygens which landed on Titan, a moon of the planet Saturn after the renowned physicist.
Should that be in the article? How? Where? Reference? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 18:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
All looks fairly good.
Huygens's principle in 1818." is not in the body
, Louis XIV, Royal Society, analytical geometry, Hofwijck, Archimedes, center of gravity, Grégoire de Saint-Vincent, approximation of the quadrature, Frans van Schooten , Cartesian, Henry Oldenburg, Journal des Sçavans, Galileo, Lodewijk Huygens, pendulm, cycloid, caustic, catenary, balance spring, Robert Hooke, Académie des sciences, Iceland spar, evolutes, Huygens–Fresnel principle, physical optics, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Leibniz, Newton, analytic geometry, mathematical physics, double refraction,
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.(Hate that one.)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7: I've worked through your feedback and addressed most of the issues you encountered, with the exception of the Notes section. Given the deadline (7 days is tomorrow) and the amount of work involved, I won't be able to complete this section on time. Do note that most of these are legacy references that preceded my editing work. If I can get an extension, I promise I will work on them and make sure they are up to par.
Here are the changes made:
Lead:
Body Typos:
References
Thank you again for taking the time to review this article. Guillermind81 ( talk) 00:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
05:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Guillermind81 ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall:
Article meets eligibility criteria. Was recently promoted to GA. I will lean heavily on the due-diligence done during the GA promotion process. Taking the hook citation from the reference. The image is used in the article and looks reasonable. I find the hook interesting, though it is a matter of personal preference. I do not see a QPQ. Please share that once done.
Ktin (
talk)
20:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Using a technique equivalent to Richardson extrapolation, Huygens approximated the centre of gravity of a segment of a circle by the centre of the gravity of a segment of a parabola, and thus finding an approximation of the quadrature; with this he was able to refine the inequalities between the area of the circle and those of the inscribed and circumscribed polygons used in the calculations of π. From these theorems, Huygens obtained two set of values, the first between 3.1415926 and 3.1415927, and the second between 3.1415926538 and 3.1415926533. Huygens also showed that the same approximation with segments of the parabola, in the case of the hyperbola, yields a quick and simple method to calculate logarithms. He appended a collection of solutions to classical problems at the end of the work under the title Illustrium Quorundam Problematum Constructiones (Construction of some illustrious problems).Please can you re-examine this text? I think once done we are almost there. Ktin ( talk) 03:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
To T:DYK/P3 without image
A recent article came out about the eyesight of Huygens as well as his equations on telescopes. Might be worth mentioning somewhere? This article is pretty well written so I do not dare to just cram it in.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2022.0054 https://phys.org/news/2023-03-eyeglasses-prescription-christiaan-huygens-years.html 161.72.23.153 ( talk) 20:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Did Huygens foresaw the intentional benefit – albeit uncomfortable for the rest of us – between military research mixed with constant wars and [civilian] research? 2A02:2F01:6B04:4300:15F8:33ED:45E1:7D74 ( talk) 00:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)