NavList:

   

Reply

George,

Thank you for the nice comments on the state of the article.  Of course,
your comments and suggestions have been instrumental in improving the
article.

Since we don't have a reference for the last date of publication of the
lunar distance tables in HM Nautical Almanac, I'll take that factoid out.  I
got the 1912 date from the USNO website, which I assume is authoritative.

I think the "Errors" section needs a rewrite.  And the facts need some
support.

The "method" section is about how lunars are done.  It does not make clear
that this has changed over the years.  The "history" section does not give
any useful information about how the use of lunar distance in navigation has
changed over the years.  I agree there needs to be a change.  I've started a
discussion on the article's discussion page.  It seems polite, since I am
proposing undoing the work of "Jrvz", who added the bit about the method of
intercepts, and the link to "longitude by chronometer".

I have put in the [[citation needed]] tags.   While I agree that "reputable"
sources can sometimes get things wrong, I believe checking facts is best,
even if I am sure I already know the topic I'm writing about.  I don't have
references for the facts that I've flagged "citation needed".  I was hoping
that other readers of the article would be able to supply some of the
requested citations.

I have credited Clive in the caption to the illustration.  If he wishes to
include his name in the illustration, I'll be happy to upload the new
version.

I think the "Errors" section is hard to follow.  I do believe the interested
reader would benefit from references for most of the facts, but I don't have
access to citable sources on the topic.

Renee


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply