Talk:J1407b/GA1

GA Review

Passed. E_F⁵ 18:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 02:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this in the coming days. Glad to see it has a standalone article. I haven't edited in astronomy topics for at least a month, so bear with me, but I'll try my best. :) E_F⁵ 00:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a cursory glance:

A second paragraph could be added to the lead about its technical aspects, as I'm sure that's what many readers come to see. (This is optional and will not affect the review.)
File:V1400_Cen_J1407b_ALMA.png is in the article twice; in the infobox and in the "Unbound object hypothesis" section. One should be removed, I'd suggest removing the latter so that the OTS visualization is standalone.

Done. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-sandwiching is going on with the "Name" section header, putting a {{clear}} template above should fix that.

Should be resolved by splitting the double image into separate ones. There does not seem to be sandwiching in my Edge browser. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to come tommorow, I haope you had a great Christmas, assuming you celebrate that. E_F⁵ 00:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back sooner. The table:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

?

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
At the end of the first paragraph in the "Disk properties and potential exomoons" section, the "a" before "Super Saturn" should be changed to "as a". I see no other glaring issues, so that's really the only thing that needs fixes here.
Done. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
No sourcing issues. All sources are cited inline, are reliable (the writers seem to be subject experts, so I'll AGF on that) and none are malformed or otherwise unusual. Earwig finds a 9.9% similarity ratio with Astronomy.com, too low to be a flat-out copyright violation.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No issues with the focus of the article nor the detail. As a space-related object, I'd actually expect a lot of numbers, and that's what I see here.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I don't see how you can be non-neutral with a floating ball several million miles away, so no issues here. (Really though, I see no peacock words).
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Besides some vandalism on October 30 of last year, I see no glaring edit wars/other major changes that have recently been made.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The biggest issue I have right now are the placements and amount of images. I am currently on a Microsoft Edge browser, so it may just look different to me, but the "double images" interfere with the layout of the article. I would suggest removing File:V1400CenLightCurve.png and File:Epsilon_Aurigae.jpg that make up the first double-image, as it cuts off the header line for the "Name" section. if you don't want to remove those, then remove File:J1407b_eclipse_animation_Kenworthy_2015.webm as there are too many images in one section and move the double-image down. I would also remove File:Brown_dwarf_OTS_44_with_disc.jpg as I see no source that backs up J1407b looking like that, and/or remove the second File:V1400_Cen_J1407b_ALMA.png as it's already in the infobox.

I've removed the duplicate ALMA image and have split the double image into separate ones, but I personally object to the removal of any of the existing images since I believe they communicate important aspects of J1407b's disk (i.e. eps Aur image helps visualize J1407b as a disk transiting a star, the lightcurve has labeled x and y axes, the animation links the lightcurve and ring structure). Maybe only one of the eps Aur or the OTS 44 illustrations should be kept since both communicate pretty much the same idea about the likely appearance of J1407b's disk, although I personally lean towards the OTS 44 illustration for it showing a brown dwarf.

In regards to the OTS 44 illustration—yes, there is "no source that backs up J1407b looking like that" apart from reading the latest scientific publications on J1407b. In fairness, J1407b hasn't received any press releases from academic organizations (in press releases, organizations commission artists to make illustrations that would then become widely used) since its discovery announcement in 2015 (before evidence supporting J1407b being unrelated to V1400 Cen was published), so we're stuck with outdated illustrations still showing J1407b as the "Super Saturn" exoplanet. Unfortunately it doesn't help that popular science media still keep propagating this outdated notion of J1407b as a "Super Saturn" [1][2], as they heavily rely on press releases and don't do/keep up with original research on their own (take this as an observation of mine from experience, not an absolute truth). If you still insist on removing either one of the artistic illustrations, I prefer we have a community vote to decide which of the two illustrations to keep. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind getting wider community input, although that shouldn't affect this review and should be done after. I see no other major issues that pop out, so good job! E_F⁵ 18:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass/Fail:
See above.

Pinging @Nrco0e:. Since the holidays were recent, I understand taking a Wikibreak, so I'll give seven days for a response. :) E_F⁵ 18:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Sorry for the delayed response, I've been busy over winter break and I haven't been in the mood for Wikipedia lately. I'll get on it though. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 January 2025 (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.