" 
 ::Yes, and its also difficult to base this on good sources, so it is something to think about, search for in sources, rather than make an editing issue of it right now. It's similar to  this issue I raised about Neptune. Theoretically, Neptune is a naked-eye object, but only under optimal conditions. But so far no-one has succeeded in spotting it, so it would be a bit of a stretch for Wikipedia to say that it can be seen with the naked eye. But it's something to watch out for; I've read that Brian Skiff is going to try again ).    

 ::It reminds me of when I was a child, laying on the grass at lunchtime at school, I saw some objects so tiny, at such an enormous distance straight overhead, slowly moving in a line, about 3 or 4 of them, I am certain now that they were pieces of space debris. Now, I can hardly recognize people across the road. I studied and researched very hard to find a way to point out to the teachers, who are the ones who may read the page and set the lesson, that although they may not be capable of seeing the ISS the kids may well be able to. I had put a lot of thought into it, and research too, and it's not really reflected in the final sentence I wrote after all that, which pitifully hints at it this way... 
 ::Heavens-Above is a not-for-profit website which can provide times and direction details for teachers, students and the public. Whilst the ISS is best viewed after sunset, and before sunrise, the ISS is bright enough to see during school hours in 'daytime passes' depending upon the visual acuity of the observers, weather conditions, station attitude (not altitude) in relation to observation point and the apparent magnitude of the ISS during the pass. 
 ::I don't know if it's much good, but it ties in precisely with what you are saying, Visual acuity is required to be capable of seeing these incredibly faint objects during daylight. Just because the teacher can't see it doesn't prove it's not there. I think Brian would be better off searching for a person with excellent visual acuity instead of neptune. The page has to be written with everyone in mind, young, old, people who can see the ISS in the daytime, and people who are blind. The images have 'alt' descriptions, you can see the ones I have added for images I have inserted for solar array detail, the ISS photographed by Ralf Vandeberg, and many other pictures have alt descriptions for the blind, but not all of them, you see, there is an enormous amount of work to be done here, and it all needs such great care and attention to detail. When I'm using search engines to research, I often come across websites that have lifted and copied off this article, which is public domain, it's not just the 3,000 people a day who read it here, it's echoed across many other sites as well. The information has to be checked and researched thoroughly first. Unfortunately I sometimes forget where I saw or read a particular piece of information. It took me ages to find ' The Russian orbital segment handles Guidance, Navigation & Control for the entire Station.' now it seems so obvious, and the source is perfect, but it just wasn't here on the page and nobody knew, if you look at the old talk pages. Just keep reading and researching and finding out everything, follow links, and find things that are missing so we can put them in. Is looking at the ISS from the ground astronomy? or is only looking at the moon and stars astronomy ? I do not know, I think it is, but it's not on the astronomy page, or the astrophotography page either, neither one has any mention of any artificial satellites at all. I've asked in those talkpages, but there is more research to be done for those definitive answers and to update those two articles, which, when you look at them, look perfect, but don't answer such a fundamentally simple question. There is a lot of work to do here. Just to answer the question should the sightings section have see also astronomy, or not, is a good amount of work, I hope experts can answer it and I'll have that part done for us...  "