Editorial Standards
Dark Skies Atlas is my independent dark-sky travel guide. This page explains how I work: where information comes from, how I check it, and what happens when something is wrong.
How I research content
I start with primary sources: official dark-sky reserve and park sites for access rules and Bortle ratings, observatory and lodge operators for booking details and availability, and recognised bodies such as the International Dark-Sky Association for certification status. Where a source has direct authority over a fact, I go to that source first.
Secondary sources — field reports, astrophotographer trip logs, and reader submissions — fill in what official channels do not cover well, such as whether a lodge's "dark-sky terrace" is actually shielded from the car park lights.
Where I've been, and where I haven't
I've spent nights under genuinely dark skies myself in three places: the Atacama Desert in Chile, NamibRand Nature Reserve in Namibia, and Merzouga, on the edge of the Erg Chebbi dunes in Morocco. Those are the pages where my own judgement about the sky, the ground, and what it's actually like to be there comes from direct memory, not a source document.
Most of the site isn't that. I haven't visited most of the destinations covered here, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. The Norway and Iceland aurora guides, Alaska and Yellowknife, Tenerife and La Palma, New Zealand, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Hawaii, the US national parks: those pages are built from research, not personal presence.
That research rests on the same sources described above: dark-sky reserve and park authorities, the International Dark-Sky Association, observatory and lodge operators, and measured figures I can check rather than recall, such as Bortle class, SQM readings, cloud-cover climatology, moon phase and Kp data, and operator-confirmed prices and access rules. A verified Bortle rating from the reserve authority tells you more about what you'll actually see than my memory of one night would.
The list of places I want to reach is longer than the list I've actually stood in. Tromsø is at the top of it: I've priced out an Arctic Norway winter three times and keep not booking it, because I'd rather wait for a week with real margin than gamble on one night. La Palma is on the same list for a more practical reason: if the Roque de los Muchachos sky really does come close to Atacama's for a fraction of the flight, I want to check that myself before I keep telling you it does. When a page here is one of those, I'll say so, not dress up research as memory.
Fact-checking methodology
- Primary-source first: For facts with operational impact (access rules, prices, availability), I go to the authoritative source before anywhere else.
- Cross-checking: When a detail is volatile or commonly wrong across the web, I compare multiple sources before publishing.
- Self-review before publishing: Before anything goes live or gets changed, I re-read it against my own research notes and the primary source, and check that dates, prices, and access details haven't gone stale since I last looked. I don't auto-refresh a timestamp without re-checking the content behind it.
- Transparent uncertainty: If something changes frequently — seasonal access roads, tour schedules — I say so and tell readers to verify before they travel.
Update policy
I update pages when information has changed or when my own review finds something stale. Not on an automated schedule. High-priority pages — those covering site access, lodge availability, and tour bookings — get reviewed more often than evergreen background and science pages.
Seasonal content gets close attention before the relevant window: aurora season guides before autumn, meteor shower pages before peak dates, eclipse guides well in advance of the event.
Use of official and recognised sources
Where relevant, I link directly to official dark-sky reserve sites, the International Dark-Sky Association, national park authorities, observatory operators, and recognised astronomical bodies. These links are there so readers can verify details or keep researching.
Corrections and feedback
If something is wrong, email me. Include the page URL and the specific correction: not just "the details are wrong" but what the correct information is and where you found it. I check before I change anything, and I make the correction when the evidence supports it.
Contact: darkskiesatlas.akzfk@simplelogin.com
Want to know more about the site or the person behind it?
Editorial FAQ
How often do you review practical information?
I review pages when I make substantive editorial changes, and I prioritise the fields most likely to go stale: lodge details, tour availability, site access rules, and Bortle ratings. Background and science pages get reviewed less urgently than booking-critical logistics.
Do you accept corrections from readers or operators?
Yes. If something is wrong or out of date, email me the page URL and the specific correction. I check reader reports against the primary source before making changes. I don't apply corrections on faith alone.
Do sponsored partners control editorial recommendations?
No. Commercial relationships don't determine which lodges, tours, or destinations I recommend. If I choose a small cabin over a well-funded competitor, it's because the sky quality and location are better, not because of an arrangement.
Have you been to every destination you write about?
No, and I don't claim otherwise. I've slept under the sky myself in the Atacama Desert, NamibRand Nature Reserve, and Merzouga, and those pages carry direct experience. Everywhere else on this site is built from primary sources: dark-sky authorities, the International Dark-Sky Association, operators, and measured figures like Bortle class and SQM readings rather than a writer's memory of one visit.