Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Exoplanet/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [1].

Exoplanet

edit
Notified: JorisvS, Drbogdan, PlanetStar, ‎Astredita,‎ Kevin Nelson, WikiProject Astronomy

Review section

edit

This article no longer appears to meet criteria 1, 2b, 2c or 4 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of individual miscellanea. The table of contents is too extensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. For an article that should be written in summary style, it is over-long with too many individual specific examples that should be summarized to give a more general picture. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the now major astronomy topic deserves it once we address these issues, like expanding short sections and summarizing it. PlanetStar 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PlanetStar: Please note that "keep" and "delist" are only used in FARC (removal candidates) and not here in FAR (review). As noted above, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." From a quick glance, it does in fact look like it's much too long. If it can be condensed adequately without removing anything essential, I think it has a good chance at staying featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Relativistic beaming – Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star." Is this name correct? I thought relativistic beaming was for matter moving at near light speed. It might be better to use 'Doppler beaming' unless this use of 'Relativistic' can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms are used, as well as others. The effect is very small even for close-in planets. The description in the article is poor, though. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay yes, I found one instance that used the term in the context of a planet,[2] compared to many using "doppler beaming". Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More generally - I see that some work has started to improve the article, but I'm struggling to see how it will be brought back to FA level. As DrKay describes, the problems go far beyond simply being too long. I guess give it a little time and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a suggestion, the planet article tree can (and does) cover many of these topics. This article should focus on aspects specific to exoplanets: a high level discovery history plus the various detection methods, observation techniques, and nomenclature. Elements of the article that are highly dynamic, such as new discoveries, should be spun off to a child article, leaving just a summary here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett
edit

There are quite a few minor issues to fix

  • There are some references where the title is all caps. (or other bits all caps) These should be changed. refs 91 144 165 196 201 207  Fixed x6   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference 8 claims to have invalid bibcode Red X Not fixed Bibcode OK. Per Help:CS1 errors#bad bibcode, digits will be allowed in positions 6–8 at the next code update.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference 228 has lower case "kepler" — should this be upper case?  Fixed (Kepler M-dwarfs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 183 time not needed  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 174 has "world★" with bonus "★" that should get stripped  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 150 looks to be deformed and missing stuff: Astronomers Find a New Type of Planet: The "Mega-Earth" date=June 2, 2014 authors=HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS (but in lower case)  Fixed (used the 2 authors listed at bottom of source and publisher=H-S CfA)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 146 looks as if it would be a journal article, but may only be a web page. full date=6 January 2014  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 145 missing most info "Probabilistic Forecasting of the Masses and Radii of Other Worlds" Jingjing Chen, David M. Kipping 29 Mar 2016  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 149 is confusing, it seems you go to a page then click a piece of text to view a video. But what is "22:59"? It looks like a time or duration.  Fixed ({{cite video}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 88 "01.17.96 – Discovery of two new planets -- the second and third within the last three months -- proves they aren't rare in our galaxy" needs information and formatting author=Robert Sanders date=17 January 1996.  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 79 "NameExoWorlds" is missing info, date=30 November 2015 publisher=IAU  Fixed (& surrounding refs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 79 clearly states "Updated on Nov 30, 2015" but you have added "July 2014" (should we use the current one or the version as retrieved when the article was written?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • (now ref #76) Using the version as retrieved makes more sense to me since it's talking about a 1-time event (the start of NameExoWorlds), so having a 2015 date for a 2014 event seems counter intuitive. The only problem is that the earliest archive.org entry is 15 Aug 2015, which prevents the next logical step of assigning a correct |archive-url=.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 60 Kepler telescope bags huge haul of planets is missing date=26 February 2014 author=Jonathan Amos, publisher=BBC News  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 59 missing publisher and retrieval date (perhaps many are)  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 45 Peter van de Kamp has an article, but do we need to author link when there is one in the page already?  Fixed by someone else (I would have opted to keep it in, since someone might not see the prose-link while looking at the refs; will leave as-is)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 39 how about finding an online link for "On the Infinite Universe and Worlds"? And given that this was titled De l'infinito universo et mondi to start with, the quote is probably a translation, but from where?  Fixed (now ref 36)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 4 is missing info.  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 203 " Patterns of Sunlight on Extra-Solar Planets" no publisher  Fixed ({{cite web}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 191 "Astronomers May Have Found Volcanoes 40 Light-Years From Earth" missing info  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " life as we know it" incorrect style  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wasn't available" incorrect style  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vs." should not be abbreviated in a title or text. Red X Not fixed I don't see this mentioned in WP:MOS, and the MOS uses vs. in text.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • strange unicode in "V 391" ref 72 Not sure I can't find it it, and I don't remember fixing it. Is it still there? The only "weird" character I see is Ø, which isn't causing me any problems. (now ref #69)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • upper-case or uppercase - choose one spelling.  Fixed (uppercase)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • triple-star or triple star — choose one style  Fixed (triple star, per Star system)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • time-scale or timescale - choose one spelling  Fixed (timescale, the prevailing usage)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-Earth(s) or Super-earth(s) should Earth have a capital letter? and should it be in quotes:'super-Earth'? (I like caps version best)  Fixed (super-Earth, per Super-Earth)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • spin-orbit or spin–orbit (perhaps n dash versus hyphen)  Fixed (spin–orbit, prevailing & per Tidal locking)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RJup is used as a unit without explanation (or non breaking space). Probably it is radius of Jupiter.  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 57 a name appears here as Pr Sa, but originally listed in the journal as Andrej Prˇsa, also listed as Prsa, very likely should actually read "Prša".[3]  Fixed Prša per pmid & IAU.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • planets' or planets' (I can't tell the difference in these) Red X Not fixed Identical; all 3 instances use ascii 39 (keyboard apostrophe).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 67 and 163 are the same Rodler, F.; Lopez-Morales, M. (fix this last so as not to mess up the ref #s here)  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "non-linear" be "nonlinear"?  Fixed (nonlinear)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NASA’s or NASA's (different apostrophes)  Fixed (straightened)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • maximum-masses should have no hyphen  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mass‐Radius or Mass-Radius (used in reference names so should not be an issue)  Fixed (both titles currently use keyboard hyphens, per their respective bibcodes & dois)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lopez-Morales also appears as López-Morales Not sure what to do; both are correct per their respective sources (I'm tempted to not consider this a problem).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "isn't" should not be used  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas N. Gautier III's ordinal incorrectly appears as Iii in ref70  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • hydrogen-helium or hydrogen–helium or H–He? Pick one of the three.  Fixed (hydrogen–helium, per List of planet types & Helium planet   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 151 "Harps-N" should read HARPS-N  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • link G-type star on first use  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 201 non standard date format FEB  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • extrasolar or extra-solar Red X Not fixed All (minority) instances of extra-solar are in titles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • exoplanet’s or exoplanet's  Fixed (straightened (except in filenames))   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • should equilibriums be equilibria?  Fixed (equilibria)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia is excessively linked, and is this the same as Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia?  Fixed (and yes, also fixed)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • disc or disk?  Fixed (disc -> disk, 1 non-title instance)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1-planet and 2-planet should be one-planet and two-planet  Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • °F is used in one spot. Perhaps it should be dropped, or used in the other places with °C  Fixed °C-to-°F replaced with °C-to-K.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the images has alt= text, which should differ from the caption and describe what is in the picture, for those who cannot see the image.  On hold I've never paid attention to alt text. Can you (or anyone here) point me to a good example-page, and I'll attempt to apply it? Just found WP:ALTTEXT & will apply it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)  Fixed All images have been assigned alt text to the best of my ability.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tom.Reding: please let me do the striking of my own issues! which I will do when I have checked the issue is addressed. Then I know what I have checked or not checked. Thanks for the corrections so far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graeme Bartlett, oops... Sorry about that (I thought it was a just a formatting preference). I'll unstrike my new posts from today.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Lithopsian
edit

The lead is, apart from being rather long, almost impossible to read because it is crammed full of inline citations. My understanding is that an FA should comprehensively address all the points that are summarised in the lead, making citations in the lead entirely unnecessary. If that were done here, the lead would be a lot more manageable and appear shorter even without having fewer words. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do this, but I hope someone else does (so page watchers know I don't plan on doing everything).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is too long. Citations don't make it hard to read in the final text. But the sentences in parenthesis make it hard to read. If we can turn these into flowing text it will be clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed(?) Graeme Bartlett's suggestion by incorporating the longer parantheticals into the surrounding text. The remaining parantheticals are now only 2 words each.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least until Fdfexoex reverted it. And JorisvS fixed it. Thanks :) (didn't see that until later)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. It most definitely is not that. Praemonitus (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
N
edit

Artistic views should be removed, and the intro should have one of the actual pictures of an imaged exoplanet. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Multiple concerns were raised in the review section; moving here so we can establish consensus on what issues remain and where this stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
edit
  • The article has a number of unreferenced statements:
  • Notes a to d.
  • Nomenclature section.
  • Last sentence of History of detection section.
  • The last sentences in the second and third paragraphs of Confirmed discoveries section.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph, and the last clause in the final paragraph, of the Planet-hosting stars section.
  • Last sentence of Moons section.
  • The Candidate discoveries section is out of date.
  • The article is not an easy read, it has far too many one sentence paragraphs, and the Detection techniques section is inadequate, but it does not seem to have any faults beyond fixing (I see that Tom Reding has already made a major contribution) by an editor far more competent than me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Thank you for the work done so far, but Dudley's comments remain unaddressed. DrKay (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Sufficient work has not happened, as the article contains unreferenced statements and out-of-date information. --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Exoplanet/archive1&oldid=1138476911"