April 12[edit]

This morning my mum saw 19 satellites going over in rapid succession. We are in France in the Charente-Maritime, and they were in the southern sky heading south-east. Does anyone know what they might have been, or what resources there are out there that would identify them? (checking satflare but I can't find them) At first I thought "Starlink!" but it's been a while since the last launch and I don't think they would still be together in such a culster. Maybe though. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're not spreading out as fast as you might think. See Starlink Train 3, launched way back at the end of January. Their leading group is still quite bunched. They would have passed over the area you described about an hour ago -- but that was well after your sighting, so it may have been a different train. What time was the observation?

Also note that 34 OneWeb satellites were launched on 21 March, six days before the company entered bankruptcy. I'm not sure how visible they are, but they're a possibility worth investigating.

I haven't figured how to pull up data on past passes from satflare.com, so please post something if you do. -- ToE 11:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've figured out how to use satflare and the first was probably Starlink 1316, the timing (06:10 local time, 04:10 UTC) is spot on. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! So that is what they are calling Starlink Train 5, launched 18 March 2020. I now see that in the "Live Sky Chart" section, it explains using the [s]/[S], [m]/[M], [h]/[H], [d]/[D] keys to adjust the time offset and see past passes, both there and in the Map View. -- ToE 13:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have produced a short video (≈ 5´) on the basics of viral development. It is planned to publish the video in one of the articles associated with the topic, provided it is reviewed positively by qualified WP peers. The file format is .ogg, the file size may be 50MB.
• As I am not a virologist / biologist I want to ask wikipedians of relevant biomedical knowledge for a review. Please point out any errors and suggest improvements where suitable.
• Thank you to anybody who finds time to evaluate the movie! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM, you may want to repeat this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology, as you're more likely to find someone who knows what they're talking about there. Alansplodge (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading that post, I might have been a bit unfair to my fellow Reference Desk regulars; please accept my apologies if you do know what you're talking about. Alansplodge (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a virologist or even a biologist, but possibly more like a typical member of your intended audience. I'm afraid that the information density at this rate of presentation is far more than can be absorbed, for each of the channels: the spoken text, the texts displayed, and the visuals – and even more so for all this combined. As to the visuals, it is not always clear how what you see relates to what is being said, and also not what various symbolic representations (such as the "glass marbles") stand for. My advise would be to leave a lot of the less essential stuff out ("less is more"). Organization-wise, I think that after an initial teaser to get the attention ( ending for example in a "cliff hanger" sentence like "So how does a virus multiply?"), a bottom-up organization would work better: cells, RNA/DNA, proteins, protein synthesis, virus morphology, virus structure, virus modus operandi. Finally, IMO the music should be less loud, particularly so while text is being spoken. Oh, and I'd say /ˈnu.kli.əˌtaɪd/, not /nuˈkli.ə.taɪd/.  --Lambiam 20:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched it yet (will do so when I'm in an environment where I can watch a video), but if it's intended for wikipedia, please keep it informational and get rid of any entertainment elements such as music or cliffhangers. They are just annoying. We aren't trying to generate clicks or sell ads here. The purpose of a video here should be to efficiently communicate info that can't easily be conveyed in text. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The voice-over sounds computer generated and does not pronounce some things clearly or even correctly. Also the background is fairly cluttered. It would be better to show just the one thing at a time in the images, synchronised with the narration. The scrolling text is hard to read while narration is in progress. I think it would be clearer to just pop up the key words as they are said, but not have them scrolling on the screen. And keep the music away from the narration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OP here:

• I appreciate these comments. This is still WIP / work-in-progress and fine-tuning / reorganising the story board will deal with the critique expressed.
  
• Re narration; The voice over was computer generated and pronunciation is inconsistent / partly incorrect. I will replace it with a natural voice.
  
• Re structure: 1: Virion (general introduction, RNA / DNA, proteins) - 2: viral entry - 3: genome replication - 4: protein synthesis - 5: assembly - 6: exocytosis. Each take (some 60”) will be organised similarly, starting with a 20” movie. Then follows a freeze frame (40”) with narration, synchronised labels and blue/green screen overlays showing associated details.
• Re clutter: I plan to concentrate on sparse essentials and delete redundant visual (and audial) junk. Some of the information (where too specific) will be dropped. Music will be removed from the video. I agree that the current information density is excessive.
  
• Re synchronisation of images, narration and text: I was aware of some irritating misfits of content in the channels. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video maker Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM follows earlier videos about Synapse and DNA Replication in similar style, which might be better suited to a TV commercial than to Wikipedia. An introduction to a complex subject works better where there is an effort to serve information in simply defined contexts (the purpose of subheadings in Wikipedia articles) rather than immersing the viewer throughout in details and nomenclature. Color is a powerful tool when applied selectively for focus in a diagram but when every one of many objects is a shiny primary color we get a garish impression like a plate full of M&M's. In reality one will never see chocolate in all those colors, just as microscopic virus and cell materials are rarely seen in color, unless deliberately stained. I suggest restraining the over-use of title fonts. The soothing music doesn't help in correlating the images, scrolling text and relentless Australian(?) robot voice that all compete for attention. DroneB (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my clear name from your posting. It has no relevance. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please DroneB (and everyone) remember to refer to WP users by their chosen WP identities. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]