Talk:Kepler-10b/GA1

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

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

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

wikilink terrestrial planet, not just the adjective

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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