Talk:Gliese 581g/GA1

GA Review

RESULT

Failed GA criterion 2c, contains original research

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 19:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may reply to each item individually with an indented comment if you wish, but please do not strike items, or add tick marks or other graphic symbols.

infobox second opinion needed

I don't like the link in the image caption going to the image description of Commons. A Wikipedia article should stand on its own, especially the referencing. It wouldn't be so bad if the link was to another Wikipedia article, but Commons does not forbid WP:OR. This information should be in the body of the article (with the image repeated if necessary, but see below) along with its references.
I'm not convinced this is the best image for the lead because so much explanation is required to understand it. It would be better off in the article body, if it didn't have another problem:-
What should we us as lead image instead? —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The least problematic would be the image of the observatory. I like the artist's impression better, at least it is directly an image of the planet, but I'm not sure that artist's impressions should be used in the lead. I've asked that question at the astronomy wikiproject. The comparison of the planetary orbits is a possibility, but I have questions over accuracy on that image as well. SpinningSpark 17:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image description and filename (edit: in the "modeled compositions" link) claim that it is Gleise 581 e, not Gleise 581 g.
The second ref of the image description on the Commons page does not go anywhere with information on Gleise 581 g as far as I can tell.
The diameter is given as one very definite figure, which stands in stark contradiction to the image which implies a large range of possible diameters depending on composition.

I've corrected the link, which should make things clearer. Where are you finding a "definite future" for the planet's radius? This would surprise me since the detection method does not measure radius (and the planet probably doesn't exist anyway). — Aldaron • T/C 13:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, but it doesn't solve the problems of using this image as the lead image. Some explanation is needed to understand it making it more suitable for the body of the article, and the references need pulling into this article. There is also still the same problem with the Open Exoplanet Catalogue source on the new link target. The radius I am referring to is in the infobox field, given as 0.29 earth. SpinningSpark 14:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of work to understand is what an encyclopedia is about. That problem is not solved with a pretty photo of an observatory. And in any case, the essence of what the image is conveying is easily understood: the planet is somewhere in size between Earth and Neptune. The links are merely provided (in fact they were requested in an earlier review of all planet boxes) for those who wish too delve deeper. That radius is for the star the planet orbits, not the planet! — Aldaron • T/C 14:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't pass an article for GA that is conveying information through an image that is not explained in the text, does not have references in-article, and the refs, in any case, have verification problems. My mistake on the radius field, I've ticked that one off. I am also concerned that the image may be the result of synthesis between the two sources, and not be a true representation of what the sources are saying, but until I see what the original information, I can't be sure. SpinningSpark 16:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow the logic. The article should clearly convey the information summarized in the figure. It's pretty basic stuff, and is basically all we can really say about this possible planet: the rough mass we have from the — now questionable — RV observations, and the correspondence between that estimate and possible radii based on possible compositions. If the article isn't doing that, then it's hardly a good article. It seems like this article is being edited by people with very little understanding of the subject, with predicable results. — Aldaron • T/C 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's complaining about the fact that the image looks like the result of original research (WP:SYNTH in particluar). —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Criticising other editors is not very helpful. This is a matter of verifiability, not of understanding the technicalities of the subject. Claiming the information is "basic" actually makes the situation worse, since basic information should be more easily sourced. The size of the planet is not discussed in the text. No reference is made to this image. No sources are referenced in this article. Of the two sources in the image description, one has no useful information, at least not at the linked url. The other does not discuss Gliese 581 anywhere. There is thus nothing in the sources that indicate that any of these possible compositions might apply to Gliese 581 g. It is WP:SYNTH to take a source discussing generalities and apply it to a specific case making assumptions on composition that are not found in any source. This is especially not good in the article lead. I think it is especially worrying to talk about a possible H/He envelope (as the image description does) for such a small body without a source saying this is actually a possibility for this planet. Frankly, if the referencing can't be improved, I don't think the image should be anywhere in the article, let alone the lead, and it certainly can't be passed for GA. SpinningSpark 17:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if that's how the policy is intended to be applied. That's like asking for an additional reference when a radius is reported as a diameter or a cited Fahrenheit temperature is reported in here Kelvin; or worse (as here) forbidding such conversions as OR or SYNTH. In this case the planet has some radius (I assume citing a reference to support that is not required, nor is asserting it forbidden) but it is entirely unknown. Nonetheless there are standard ways of estimating the radius. One is cited, and while the field has advanced a bit since it was published, the difference would be unnoticeable in the figure, which thus, simply represents the observed mass (such as it is) covered to a range of possible radii. Pretty standard stuff. — Aldaron • T/C 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might accept a routine calculation argument if you could quote RS saying the planet might have one of these phyiscal compositions. But you haven't, and if RS are not discussing any such thing, then Wikipedia should not be speculating. We could just as easily be calculating what the surface temperature would be under various conditions, or possible atmospheres, or inclination of the poles. But we should not, if RS do not go there first. SpinningSpark 22:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are pretty standard ranges of planetary compositions, none of which there are any good reasons to rule out, you might better argue for references supporting your assertion that any of these phyiscal compositions should not be entertained. — Aldaron • T/C 23:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask a for another reviewer to give a second opinion on this. SpinningSpark 20:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

red dwarf Gliese 581 is two contiguous links. This is deprecated because it seems like only one link to a reader and they may not realise they need to follow to two places. In this case it is easily fixed by inserting a word like "... red dwarf star Gliese 581."
Done. —MartinZ02 (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ESO should be linked on first mention. HARPS has been llinked twice
Done. —MartinZ02 (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"... both data sets (the HIRES and the HARPS) were needed to sense the planet." The phrasing implies that both these terms have already been introduced, but this is the first mention of HIRES and there has been no previous mention of data sets. A better construction is "…data sets from both HIRES and HARPS were needed to sense the planet..."
As a general point, the full name of abbreviations should be given on first use. While they are given in the article body, they have not been given in the lead. Remember, the lead should stand on its own as a mini-article, and still make sense even if that is all that is read. It is best to avoid using abbreviations and jargon in the lead altogether whenever this is at all possible.

You now have some repeated links. In cases where the abbreviation is going to be used later in the article, you should also give the abbreviation in brackets after the first mention in full. SpinningSpark 17:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"another study later supported the planet's existence" and "a reanalysis by Vogt supported its existence". Are those two different studies or the same one? It isn't clear.
Those are different studies. —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So can you please make that clear - perhaps by naming the lead investigator in each case, or the institution involved. SpinningSpark 17:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...more to come. SpinningSpark 23:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I asked you explicitly at the beginning not to use tick marks. I'd prefer you not to bold your responses either. You should leave it to me as the reviewer to mark items as complete. I do not intend to proceed with reviewing the rest of the article until you have addressed the more substantive issues. I am expecting that to involve some substantial changes to the article body, so I am leaving a full review until the article stabilises. SpinningSpark 13:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's ok to write that you have done the item with an indented comment. SpinningSpark 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have redlinked Guillem Anglada‐Escudé you will need to mention him in the article body. Either that, or a reference will be needed in the lead (but article body and reference there is preferable).
He's already mentioned in the third paragraph of "Further analyses of HIRES/HARPS data". —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I missed that, my search didn't work because you omitted the accent on the "e". As you have linked the name in the lead, I suggest that you repeat the link in the body per WP:REPEATLINK. SpinningSpark 16:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I also added the accent on the e. —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I feel I now have to fail this article. The issue over the verifiability of the "diameters" image used in the lead is a showstopper for me. I have held the review open for a long time in the hope that it will be resolved, either by removal, or provision of suitable sources, but we seem to have reached an impasse with no prospect of a solution.

For the benefit of any future reviewer, I have only reviewed the lead of this article. I have looked at the body of the article only so far as to confirm that there is no information or sources there concerning the diameter of the planet. I have also not confirmed that the lead is a true summary of the article body. Addressing my review comments should not, therefore, be taken as sufficient for this article to pass. SpinningSpark 10:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.