Talk:Christiaan Huygens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateChristiaan 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.
Good articleChristiaan 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.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2021Good article nomineeListed
February 16, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 12, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first pendulum clock was invented in 1657 by Christiaan Huygens?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 14, 2018.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Untitled[edit]

In case anyone else was wondering, here is a page and audio clip describing how to pronounce Huygens' name.

Excised rubbish:

He discovered and proved mathematically that the oscillation-time (or frequency) of a pendulum depends solely on its length, independent of the angle of swing. The popular notion up to then had held that the larger the swing, the longer the oscillation-time.

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)

D'oh. I forgot the coilspring-and-balancewheel oscillator. Kwantus 22:52, 2005 Feb 22 (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)[reply]

Is the lack of a link to Huygens' principle deliberate?

Images and [edit] tags[edit]

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)[reply]

Contradiction: Who discovered that pendula aren't isochronous?[edit]

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)[reply]

Mersenne was first to observe that pendulums are not isochronous. Huygens is notable for proving it mathematically. Added supporting citations to article, and removed "contradiction" tag at top. --ChetvornoTALK 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for clearing up this issue! Top.Squark (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction: Who discovered the 31 equal temperament?[edit]

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)[reply]

We ought to have a source, but I see no contradiction between these articles, unlike what's noted in the hatnote at Christiaan Huygens. Rossi and Huygens both discovered, independently, the 31-EDO, and apparently Vicentino preceded both with this discovery. Rossi just was the first to publish it.
However, this page from the Huygens–Fokker Foundation states that Huygens "knew of the existence of Vicentino's archicembalo", so it would seem to be doubtful whether Huygens' contribution should be called a discovery at all.  --Lambiam 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this was not a discovery, but an invention? Epzcaw (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we ought to have a source, and I agree that there seems to be no contradiction -- as far as I can tell from the Nicola Vicentino article, Vicento described and actually built a 31-note-to-the-octave musical instrument, but the Lindley, Mark (1990) reference in the archicembalo implies that Vicento used some tuning system *different* from 31 equal temperament, so it seems possible that 31 equal temperament wasn't discovered / invented until much later. --DavidCary (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal force[edit]

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)[reply]

Did Huygens write science fiction?[edit]

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)[reply]

René Descartes "minor physicis" addition[edit]

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)[reply]

Extraterrestrial Life[edit]

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)[reply]

Not published discoveries in Protozoology[edit]

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)[reply]

Image KettingHyugens.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Yes, thanks, obviously intended as a catenary when you look at it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English editions of the Treatise on Light[edit]

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)[reply]

--- Minimal response made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.83.18 (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

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)[reply]

Dutch and Low German have regional versions of their own. I agree that the English versions are not used in Dutch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.30.37 (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate for WP to include common non-native (e.g. English) pronunciations of the name. However, I agree that it might be misleading for the Dutch-native pronunciation to be excluded from the pronunciation options for English-speakers.
However, on the topic of Dutch pronunciation, how consistent is that? The WP clip and one other that I found sound roughly like HOI-hwens, whereas there are three clips on forvo that sound distinctly closer to HAI-hwens.
For completeness I also found three clips on HowToPronounce with examples of English pronunciations that all sound like HAI-gens.
Sorry for using respelling rather than IPA. I know IPA is better, but I'm also more likely to make a mistake in IPA.
—DIV (49.180.66.130 (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Theological views of Huygens[edit]

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".

Lander[edit]

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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Christiaan Huygens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 18:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this one up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fairly good.

Lead
  • Makes claims that are not in the body:
    • "who is widely regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time and a major figure in the scientific revolution." This claim is in the lead , but not the body, and therefore is unsourced. You need to add appropriate evidence to the body.
    • Similarly, "His mathematical theory of light was initially rejected in favor of Newton's corpuscular theory of light, until Augustin-Jean Fresnel adopted
    • "Huygens was the first to idealize a physical problem by a set of parameters then analyze it mathematically"

Huygens's principle in 1818." is not in the body

    • "first to fully mathematize a mechanistic explanation of an unobservable physical phenomenon"
    • "In 1655, Huygens began grinding lenses with his brother Constantijn"
  • "Traité de la Lumière", "Horologium Oscillatorium" (for these I suggest removing the first mentions in parentheses), "pendulum clock" and "rings of Saturn" are doubly linked in the lead.
  • In the infobox, suggest changing "Titan" to "Discovery of Titan"
Body
  • Typos:
    • "favor" -> "favour"
    • "analyze" -> "analyse"
    • "labeled" -> "labelled"
    • "center" -> "centre"
    • "labeled" -> "labelled"
    • "honor" -> "honour"
  • "Using his modern telescope he succeeded in subdividing the nebula into different stars" Comma after "telescope"
  • "He then calculated that the angle of this hole was 1/27,664th the diameter of the Sun" Don't see the need for the math markup here
  • "home to Christiaan Huygens from 1688" -> "home of Huygens from 1688"
  • Duplicate links: Constantijn Huygens, Descartes, House of Orange, Leiden, Mersenne, catenary, The Hague, Pierre de Fermat, Frans van Schooten

, 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,

References
  • Last sentence of "Saturn's rings and Titan" is unreferenced.
  • Named after Huygens section in unreferenced
  • Remove the inline external links
  • Suggest using the citation template for fn 1
  • The "References" are not used in the article, so move them to the "Further reading" section (Except: Move Shapiro into fn 125)
  • Not all the journals have ISSNs. I like them because although not required n the Engluish Wikipedia, theye are required on other ones. Consider adding them where they are missing. But not a requirement at GA.
  • Remove the bare URLs from fn 10
  • fn 21, 93, 112, 116: page numbers required
  • fn 22, 24: "pg" should be "p."
  • fn 26: pp. 275–6 should be "pp. 275–276". Same for fn 34, 37, 39, 45, 51, 58, 60, 52, 85, 86, 88, 99, 105, 111, 132
  • fn 30 has a tag that should be resolved
  • fn 32 is a Master's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. (Hate that one.)
  • fn 33: page range required. Same for 42, 90, 140
  • fn 40 points back to fn 27; should repeat to keep the style consistent
  • fn 46: Reformat as cite thesis and add page numbers
  • fn 72, 106, 129, 148, 150: Do we have ISBN, publication details?
  • fn 78: Fix the page numbering format
  • fn 91, 94, 95: What is Garber and Ayers?
  • fn 97: Remove the bare URL by using the template
  • fn 119: use the template to fix the format
  • fn 137 doesn't point there anymore; consider using fn 136 instead

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for your feedback. I will work on these issues shortly in the next few days and get back to you. Just a quick question: Is British spelling a requirement (e.g., favor = favour?) I didn't know it was, but if that's the case, I'll be happy to comply. Guillermind81 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a requirement. If you want to use US spelling instead, simply tag the article with a {{use American English}} template. I thought that British English was more appropriate given the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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:

  • Makes claims that are not in the body: "who is widely regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time and a major figure in the scientific revolution." This claim is in the lead , but not the body, and therefore is unsourced. You need to add appropriate evidence to the body. Now under Legacy section.
  • Similarly, "His mathematical theory of light was initially rejected in favor of Newton's corpuscular theory of light, until Augustin-Jean Fresnel adopted. Now under Optics lead section.
  • "Huygens was the first to idealize a physical problem by a set of parameters then analyze it mathematically" Now under Pendulums section.
  • Huygens's principle in 1818." is not in the body. Corrected date to 1821 to match text under Optics lead section.
  • "first to fully mathematize a mechanistic explanation of an unobservable physical phenomenon" Now under Optics lead section.
  • "In 1655, Huygens began grinding lenses with his brother Constantijn" Added new language under Lenses section.
  • "Traité de la Lumière", "Horologium Oscillatorium" (for these I suggest removing the first mentions in parentheses),"pendulum clock" and "rings of Saturn" are doubly linked in the lead. Removed first two references, removed double links for the other two.
  • In the infobox, suggest changing "Titan" to "Discovery of Titan" Changed wording in infobox.

Body Typos:

  • "favor" -> "favour"
  • "analyze" -> "analyse"
  • "labeled" -> "labelled"
  • "center" -> "centre"
  • "labeled" -> "labelled"
  • "honor" -> "honour" Changed to British spelling.
  • "Using his modern telescope he succeeded in subdividing the nebula into different stars" Comma after "telescope" Fixed.
  • He then calculated that the angle of this hole was 1/27,664th the diameter of the Sun" Don't see the need for the math markup here. Removed math markup.
  • "home to Christiaan Huygens from 1688" -> "home of Huygens from 1688" Fixed.
  • Duplicate links: Constantijn Huygens, Descartes, House of Orange, Leiden, Mersenne, catenary, The Hague, Pierre de Fermat, Frans van Schooten, Louis XIV, Royal Society, analytical geometry, Hofwijck, Archimedes, center of gravity, Grégoire de Saint-Vincent, approximation of the quadrature, Cartesian, Henry Oldenburg, Journal des Sçavans, Galileo, Lodewijk Huygens, pendulum, cycloid, caustic, balance spring, Robert Hooke, Académie des sciences, Iceland spar, evolutes, Huygens–Fresnel principle, physical optics, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Leibniz, Newton, mathematical physics, double refraction. Fixed.

References

  • Last sentence of "Saturn's rings and Titan" is unreferenced. Added reference.
  • Named after Huygens section in unreferenced. Fixed.
  • Remove the inline external links. Fixed
  • Suggest using the citation template for fn 1. Not sure I understood how to do this.
  • The "References" are not used in the article, so move them to the "Further reading" section. Fixed.
  • Remove the bare URLs from fn 10. Fixed
  • fn 22, 24: "pg" should be "p." Fixed
  • fn 30 has a tag that should be resolved. Fixed

Thank you again for taking the time to review this article. Guillermind81 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Kudos for your work on this article. Do you intend to take it to FAC? Are you planning on working on other articles about scientists?
@Hawkeye7: Much appreciated. I do plan to take it to FAC once I get the other references fixed and perhaps add a bit more content here and there. I've been editing other scientists' entries (mostly ancient and Early Modern) that are in need of much work, but this was the first one that I felt was up to par.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is up to par, and should pass FAC. Problems with the references led to me checking them more closely than I usually would at GA, but you will be grateful for it at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
One of the first pendulum clocks designed by Christiaan Huygens alongside his treatise Horologium Oscillatorium (1673)
One of the first pendulum clocks designed by Christiaan Huygens alongside his treatise Horologium Oscillatorium (1673)
  • ... that the first pendulum clock was invented in 1657 by Christiaan Huygens? Source: In 1657, inspired by earlier research into pendulums as regulating mechanisms, Christiaan Huygens invented the pendulum clock, which was a breakthrough in timekeeping and became the most accurate timekeeper for the next 275 years until the 1930s. Marrison, W. (1948). "The Evolution of the Quartz Crystal Clock". Bell System Technical Journal. 27 (3): 510–588. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01343.x.

Improved to Good Article status by Guillermind81 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Starting this review shortly. Ktin (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ktin, as best I can determine, this is the first DYK by this nominator. As such, they are not required to supply a QPQ. Also, with all due respect, DYK reviewers should never rely on the GA review for anything here at DYK: it is your responsibility to do all of the usual checks, from neutrality to the inline citations in each paragraph to copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism checks. We have found issues with some past GAs that have required fixing at DYK (and more than one GA has been revoked because of DYK scrutiny). Thank you for not leaning at all on this one or in future reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good @BlueMoonset:. @Guillermind81: -- firstly, amazing work on the article. I have added a few [citation needed] tags across the article. Should be easy to fix. Most of them might just need addition of a reference that has already been used elsewhere in the article, I suspect. Found that the works section was lacking in sources. Can you have a look at that as well? Ktin (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktin: Thanks for your feedback. I've added the references requested in the original article, including the works section. Let me know if there are any other edits you think are necessary. Guillermind81 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Guillermind81: that was quick. I was doing a round of copyvio checks and the tool kept working for a long time (understandable given the size / number of links). But, it came back with a 62.3% violation possible score [1], which I think is not truly reflective of the quality of the article with most of the matches either being names of works that have been rightly used as-is or quoted text. The highest match was was with an Encyclopedia.com article. There is one paragraph and you can see that at the link provided, that seems to be a very close paraphrasing. 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)[reply]
@Ktin: Thanks again for getting back to me. I've changed the wording based on your feedback; let me know if further changes are needed.Guillermind81 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guillermind81:, Thanks much. Looks good. [2] Copyvio score says 53%, but, most of the hits are phrases, names of works, and direct quotes. Should be good imo. Added two minor [citation needed] tags. Please have a look. Once that is done. I will approve this hook. Ktin (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktin: I've added citations to the two places you requested. Please take a look. Thank you.
Looks good. Thanks for working the edits. Marking this approved. Ktin (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P3 without image

Huygens glasses[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi,
Thanks for the article; it was very informative. I do think we should mention this in the main article briefly. I'm currently working on a separate entry on Huygens's astronomy, including his use of telescopes, so we can probably expand the content there. Guillermind81 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military advancements[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christiaan_Huygens&oldid=1212659246"