Talk:Gliese 581 planetary system/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rontombontom (talk · contribs) 15:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article thoroughly and checked some of the references (not all). In general, the article uses good English, is thoroughly sourced, covers all that is to be known about the subject, stable and illustrated. I corrected some minor issues myself. However, I think the article needs substantial work on several details to fulfil the first four GA criteria (see list below). Since the nominator (and apparent main editor) of the article has been inactive since October and no other editor touched the article since then, I don't see a realistic chance for the criticism to be addressed any time soon. For that reason, I will fail the GA nomination unless someone objects in the next 24 hours. Of course, another go at a GAN may be launched after improvements to the article.

Infobox:

Giving a range for "known planets" is confusing, I suggest to add "confirmed"/"unconfirmed" (possibly with HTML line break).

Intro:

Due to the controversy, the intro should be sourced, too.
The formulation "false detections" seems too strong if the dispute is on-going, and too unspecific to indicate the nature of the dispute.
Since the intro is a summary, the unconfirmed planets deserve specific mention, too.

Observation history:

This now starts with the first planet discoveries. What's missing is the discovery of the star.
Considering that under the Planets section, the features of each planet are discussed, in this section, there is too much detail on them. It would be enough to give the discovery circumstances and indicate the significance of each planet, and move the rest (if not dublicate) to the planet's section.
The Vogt quote at the end of the third paragraph seems to be rhetoric in its entirety, I would cut it entirely. The same subject comes up again in the before-last sentence of the Gliese 581g section, then paraphrased, which is even worse because there it has the appearance of a scientific argument.
The article uses the symbol "AU" without introducing it in the unabbreviated form (that is, "astronomical unit (AU)"). Later, the same is true about symbols for Earth mass and Earth radius.

Gliese 581:

Since the accompanying image shows the star's relative size to the Sun, the text should mention it, too.

Planets:

The first paragraph is unsourced.

Confirmed planets, Unconfirmed planets:

For readability, a short intro text should separate section and sub-section headers.

Gliese 581g:

The last sentence about "a second Age of Discovery" seems pure rhetoric, I would cut it.

Gliese 581d:

Is it disputed or "once considered disputed"? At any rate, the source for the "reanalysis" is in fact a critique of the statistical method used by those disputing the discovery, which ony recommends a re-analysis of data without doing it.

References:

With just a cursory check, I found two dead links, with access dates from 2010 (updated them myself). All links should be checked.
Given the controversy surrounding some of the subjects, I think it is essential to give a date for all sources.
As per the MOS, all dates in the article body and the reference dates should be in the same format, only the access dates can be in ISO format (yyyy-mm-dd).

So that concludes my review. Rontombontom (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inactive now; however, I'll try to take care of the issues. —MartinZ (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I'll keep the GAN open for now. Please indicate here when you feel you're done. (Then I will re-read the article and do what I haven't yet done: check every reference.) Rontombontom (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MartinZ, it seems you didn't have enough free time to complete the edits my review called for. I fully appreciate if real life got in the way, but I think I have waited long enough, so I'm failing the GAN for now. Again, you're welcome to re-nominate the article once you have time again for editing. Rontombontom (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]