Talk:Looming and similar refraction phenomena

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

A fact from Looming and similar refraction phenomena appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 April 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that distant objects that are observed from the same place may appear to look elevated, lowered, stretched, or shortened depending on atmospheric refraction?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/April.

Wikipedia

A note

Is the fact that mirage is not linked symptomatic of a larger problem here?--Wetman (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I do not understand your question. May I please ask you to rephrase it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lead could be clarified

Nice job on getting this article to DYK.

I'd suggest changing the lead so that the term(s) and scope of the article get defined immediately. The first sentences currently tell you what the term is NOT. Why not start with the concepts in the subsequent sentences ("Depending on atmospheric conditions the objects could appear to be elevated or lowered, stretched or stooped. These phenomena can occur together, changing the appearance of different parts of the objects in different ways".)

I also wonder if you'd be willing to rename the page, to looming, towering, stooping, and sinking (refraction phenomena).

I imagine you're already familiar with WP:MOSBEGIN, but it's worth another look.

-user:Agradman editing for the time being as 128.59.182.25 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've attached a reference to the old AFD discussion.

Reading it, I see that I've just suggested the former title. I'm not interested in that debate, but I do agree with the comments made there that the lead of this article could use more material explaining why these four phenomena are related. -user:Agradman editing for the time being as 128.59.182.25 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

last comment: here's a source which you might want to integrate somehow. American Practical Navigator. Published in 2002. -user:Agradman editing for the time being as 128.59.182.25 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. If you'd like to edit the article, and change the lead, please do. I am not a very good English writer, and I am sure you will do a better job than I. Please also feel free to add a new source you found (thank you). I am not so sure about renaming. The article was nominated for the deletion because of the name, but I personally do not mind to rename it as you suggested. Let's wait for few days, and if there are nobody against the suggested name, we'll go ahead and rename it.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claim about planet six times larger

The claim that, on a planet about six times larger (not six times the radius—the cited Popular Mechanics article doesn’t specify), seems like it can’t possibly be right. This article accurately reflects what Popular Mechanics says, but it’s citing another source in turn, and, I’m inclined to think, misinterpreting it. If refraction could completely “cancel out” positive curvature like that at a planet of a given radius, then wouldn’t a slightly larger radius cause the surface to look concave? And, since the planet is a sphere, any amount of concavity would mean the observer sees themselves looking up into a hollow sphere of incredible size, with the sky completely invisible. But that’s obviously not how large planets work, because we can see the gas giants illuminated by the sun, and they wouldn’t receive any light if refraction worked the way Popular Mechanics claimed it did in 1929. Can anyone with access to the book they cite confirm (or disprove) my suspicion that they’re misinterpreting it? ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]