Talk:Kepler-10b

Transiting?

"the smallest TRANSITTING exoplanet? Isn't it the smallest exoplanet? Which exoplanet is smaller? -- IceDragon64 (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Several non-transiting planets have slightly lower minimum masses, two (Gl 581 e and PSR B1257+12 A) have significantly lower minimum masses. As these are non-transiting, their actual masses could be larger, but their diameters are unknown. So the correct claim (despite a few early press releases) is that this is the smallest transiting exoplanet. It may well also be the smallest exoplanet around a "normal" star. And: that's what the paper says: "Kepler-10b is the smallest transiting exoplanet discovered to date." — Aldaron • T/C 16:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Size

"Kepler-10b is 1.4 times the size of the Earth" It's diameter is 1.4 times the volume of the Earth, but not it's volume. Someone could missunderstand that.80.121.90.183 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting the Planets Surface Temperature ONLY in Kelvin is Snobby and Rude

Wikipedia is a public use encyclopedia, not a clubby little journal for the scientific in-crowd. Editors of science articles should have the courtesy to include temperatures in Farenheit and Celsius so as many (non-scientist) readers as possible can understand the article. -- Telemachus.forward (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the average reader will not understand the difference between 1600 K, 1300 C, and 2400 F. It is not like the average person has any experience with these extreme temperatures even when using a self cleaning oven. Also keep in mind that the surface temperature is a generic mathematical estimate, it has not been directly measured. I did add that 1600 K is more than the melting point of gold. -- Kheider (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

a reader unfamiliar with either C/F degrees would still be inconvenienced if only one them were used and so Kelvin would be the most common culturally-neutral scale if you want to put a single number (and one learns the concept of absolute zero in the process). Trivial note to Kheider: why use the melting point of gold (1337.73 K) and not the more familiar copper (1357.75 K, a bit closer to 1600 and the last calibration point for ITS-90)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.158.186 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Either is fine. What I remember is hesitating because the wiki-article shows a surface temperature of 1600K, yet the Kepler reference shows a equilibrium temperature of 1833 K. I have switched over to Kepler referenced 1833 K figure. -- Kheider (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Error in article

"Kepler-10b is the first definitively rocky planet." I would have to say that Earth might have beaten it to the punch there, followed by Mars, Venus, and Mercury. Kaldari (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it! Kaldari (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

10 vs 10b

It states that Kepler-10b is 1.4 times the size of Earth. The article then states in the next section that it is approximately the size of our sun. Last time I checked our sun is not 1.4 times the size of Earth but rather approximately 109 times larger in diameter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.232.238 (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kepler-10 is the star (type GV), Kepler-10b is the planet. -- Kheider (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Article review 1

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-10b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC) I will review this article soon. Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific comments:

• any idea when were the Keck observations made?

 Done Since there were a total of 40 Keck observations made over the course of a year, I added the beginning and end of the observations and referenced the paper announcing the discovery Nstock (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• was any announcement on the planet made before 2011 (was anybody aware of the results? or NASA just told their own team at Keck to quicly check the star?)

CommentThe first official announcement came in 2011. While the Kepler team was aware of the results before this time, and made allusions to its existence, I do not think there are published accounts of the planet prior to January 2011. With regards to the Keck observations, my understanding is that the Kepler team had previously been awarded chunks of time to check up on those promising candidates that Kepler was expected to find. Nstock (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• the mass of the planet given in the text is misleading. the infobox gives 3.3 to 5.7 interval, and that should be clearly be explained in the text (as it is one of the most notable characteristics of the planet)

 Done Nstock (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• wikilink terrestrial planet, not just the adjective

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• iron dumbbell is not very encyclopedic and distracting. just give the value and say that it is close to that of a piece of iron

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Corot discussion: clearly say that its data has a significantly larger uncertainty, which leaves K10b the first definite example of a terrestrial planet

 Done Nstock (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• BBC report states that "This report... will be marked as among the most profound scientific discoveries in human history" something along these lines should be put in the article

Comment There was actually a Significance section before, but I removed it because the idea of it seems biased. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• another article says "This new planet is some transitional type of planet between what we’ve been finding and what we’ve been hoping to find…. Kepler-10b will go into every textbook in astronomy worldwide"

Comment Maybe worth including, but this and the previous quote are fairly sensationalist. More importantly, both are quoted from one of the authors of the discovery paper (Geoff Marcy), so there's certainly a bias present. Nstock (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• the infobox should be slightly better referenced (i.e. give a link for each section)

 Done Frustratingly, I don't know of a way to reference an entire section of the infobox, and so have to rack up the citations for a source by citing each individual line Nstock (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• The only issue remaining is some further discussion on the notability of the discovery. You are right that the discoverers self-promotion is not adequate, but isn't somebody out there who said something about the discovery? I feel like something this big ought to have a "reception" section. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Passing. Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Outdated gravitational acceleration

The current gravitational acceleration listed is used for values present in the paper at source [3]. However, the planet's mass has been updated in a 2016 paper (source [4]) since then, rendering the acceleration useless. OboeKade (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Should come out to around 16.83 m/s^2 or 1.7g. OboeKade (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)