Jump to content

Talk:Pulsar planet/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 01:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing Special:Permalink/1173461364. If I mention a reference number, it'll be as shown in that revision.

Lead section

[edit]
  • Pulsar planets are planets that are found orbiting pulsars, or rapidly rotating neutron stars. Two comments here. First, delete "found"; they exist whether we've found them or not. Second, I'm confused about "or rapidly rotating neutron stars". Are you giving two alternatives to where they are found, or are you explaining what a pulsar is? I'm assuming the later, but Pulsar says they have to be highly magnetized", which you don't mention here. My recommendation is to drop the explanation entirely. People can click the pulsar link to find out more.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've still got the word "found" RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oop, removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulsars are extremely precise clocks. I get that they can be used as precise time standards, but looking around, I don't see any sources which refer to them as clocks. Lots of sources say you can use them to build clocks, but not that they are clocks.
    Er, the source for the claim in the article uses the word "clocks". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • electrons-positrons, I think you meant to say "electron-positron pairs"?
    Probably, but I don't want to presume pairedness. I mean yeah, charge conservation, but still. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In all three places in the main body (Habitability) where you talk about this, you say "electron-positron pairs", so you should do the same in the lead. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • partial destruction, this seems to be referring to PSR B1257+12, which talks about "destruction", not "partial destruction".
    Well, if a large remnant is left over, is it really "destruction"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the main body, you say "generated from the destruction of a companion star". So you should do the same here. RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the main text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." I'm not convinced the three "Artist's concept" images here satisfy that. They are certainly pretty, but what information do they convey which helps the reader understand what a pulsar planet is?

The first one does show the appearance such a planet and its star pretty well, e.g the expected aurorae and the external luminosity of a pulsar, like around the Crab Pulsar [1]. The other two are more decorative, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the first one really adds to the reader's understanding, but OK, I won't push on that. The other two, please remove. RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other two are gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

[edit]
  • It is thought. Who thinks that? (MOS:WEASEL) Should be something like "Martin et al argue that..."
    Ah, this one's an example of a claim sourced to a particular paper, which however in turn refers to a whole stream of sources and doesn't enumate them all. It's not easy to attribute. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source (ref 1) says, In addition, most planet formation scenarios require the presence of a “dead zone” in the protoplanetary disk, but you've made a stronger statement, asserting that it is always required, not just in "most ... scenarios". In fact, your "Second generation" example under Formation seems to describe a scenario where there is no such dead zone. So I think this needs more clarity about whether it's actually required, and who says so. RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rewritten that one, but the point of attribution still stands. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • magnetorotational instability the source spells it "magnetorotational", so probably best to follow their example.
    I dunno, on my laptop they seem to be the same word? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I'm an idiot who has not yet mastered copy-paste. What I meant to say was: the source spells it "magneto–rotational" (i.e. with a hyphen). I don't feel strongly about this, so do whatever you feel works best. RoySmith (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Well, the source to me doesn't show a hyphen? Google Scholar says the unhyphenated spelling is more common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebecca G. Martin, Mario Livio, and Divya Palaniswamy, near the bottom of column 2 of page 1: "This is a quiescent region where the magneto–rotational instability...". But I'm fine either way. RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several processes[a] that could give rise to planetary systems I'm not sure what value there is in this compendium. You state that there are no known pulsar planets which belong to the first two classes. Presumably all the known pulsar planets belong to one of the later three classes, but you don't indicate which belong to which class.
    All currently known pulsar planets, yes, but I don't think that alternative but as-yet unproven formation mechanisms need to be excluded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implications

[edit]

This section talks about "neutron star planets". Is this the same as a pulsar planet? Not all neutron stars are pulsars, so I guess not all neutron star planets are pulsar planets? This should be clarified.

Technically, there are rare non-neutron star pulsars, but for this article we only discuss these around neutron stars. For some reason, science calls them "pulsar planets" instead of more generical "neutron star planets". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observability

[edit]

Occurrence

[edit]
  • half a dozen perhaps "half-dozen"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • no more than one planetary system per 200 neutron stars as above, this leaves me confused about whether "neutron star" and "pulsar" are synonyms or not.
    Yeah, they are not interchangeable terms in general but in many discussions on planets pulsar is a synonym of neutron star. Practically, detecting a planet around a non-pulsar neutron star isn't possible with current technology and possibly not ever without FTL. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's a reasonable explanation. Please add something along those lines to the article, including a statement that the terms are being used interchangeably here. It's confusing to read two different terms for what appear to be the same thing and be unsure if they're actually the same, or somehow different and you just haven't figured out yet how they differ. RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable explanation, thanks, but I'm afraid that WP:SYNTH means we can't add it to the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure which part of that is SYNTH, but my main point is that it's confusing that you're using two different terms ("pulsar" and "neutron star") without explaining why you sometimes use one and sometimes use the other. WP:GACR says the prose needs to be understandable to an appropriately broad audience. I think I'm a representative of that audience; I have a background in the physical sciences and an amateur-level interest in astronomy. As I read through the article, I kept coming back to not understanding why sometimes you're talking about pulsars and sometimes you're talking about neutron stars and going back to see what I missed that led to the change of topic.
    One way or another you need to eliminate this confusion. If they're synonyms, say so. If they're not, but the literature is inconsistent on which term it uses, say so. If one is a subset of the other, say that. And if it truly is SYNTH to say that the terms are interchangeable, then pick one term and use it consistently. But this needs to be clarified somehow. RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Standardized on "pulsar" then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

[edit]
  • Among the better known pulsar planets You show a table with all the known examples (7) but you describe 4 of them as "among the better known". This seems like a strange way to describe it.
    Yeah, the latter 3 are these that technically meet the definition but aren't widely discussed as PPs yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • heating it to temperatures of about 2,300 K I think you can just say "heating it to about 2,300K". I'm also not sure there's any value in the {{convert}} for K -> C. That's usually used to convert metric to imperial or vice-versa. If giving both K and C is our normal convention for astronomy articles, I'm OK with it, but if not, I think it just adds noise. In any case, in converting 2300 to 2030, you're adding a significant digit of precision which isn't justified. See MOS:CVT
    Does this work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you're referring to 2,300 K (2,030 °C)? Um, no. Is there really any need to convert K to C for the reader? At the sorts of temperatures we're talking about there, the difference between the two values is meaningless. "2,300 K" has 2 significant digits. "2,030 C" has 3 significant digits. You can't generate additional significant digits by doing a units conversion. But beyond that, MOS:CVT says not to do the conversion at all ("in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, about 2300 K. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Habitability

[edit]

A few more comments

[edit]
  • The nomenclature is confusing (not your fault; that's how it is). Could you add a short statement somewhere near the beginning of the article along the lines of "Pulsar planets are named using standard conventions for pulsar names and the less standardized conventions for exoplanet names. This will prep the reader for why when they click through on PSR B1257+12b, they get to PSR B1257+12 A (not to mention why the table has entries for 12b, 12c, and 12d, but not 12a.
    'afraid today I won't have time to track down sources for such a note. I'll try again tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, found this source for such a note, but it's a preprint that was never published but is cited six times. Added a note with a different source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table in Known pulsar planets has all blanks for the last two columns. Eliminate those columns.
  • Also in the table, it took me a bit of thought to realize "Semimajor axis" describes the orbit, not the planet itself. Perhaps add another group heading for "Orbital parameters" above columns 3-5, with 2nd level headings "Semimajor axis", "period", and "eccentricity".
    Gonna sleep on the previous two, as a) these values can in theory be discovered in the future and b) from what I can see, both changes require either replacing the template with a custom table or rearranging the template itself, both of which involve a notable maintenance burden in the future. I'll think about it again tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think the table would be better without those two empty columns (and to be honest, I don't think "because the template" is a strong argument to make), but reviewing WP:GACR#The six good article criteria I can't justify insisting. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most readers with some knowledge of astronomy will understand the mass, axis, and period values in the context of "how these compare to our solar system", but won't have as good a feel for the eccentricity values. Without looking up all of these (I did have to go look up Pluto), I come up with something like, "Most of these orbits are very nearly circular, similar to the orbits of our own solar system. PSR B0329+54b is the outlier, with an eccentricity very similar to Pluto". Maybe it would make sense to add something along those lines, to give readers more context?
    'afraid today I won't have time to track down sources for such a note. I'll try again tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are sources, but I worry about WP:SYNTH if we compare them to the solar system. Is that a problem? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine as is (with reference to my WP:GACR#The six good article criteria comment above). RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eccentricity for PSR B1257+12b is given as the integer 0, which seems odd. Integers count, real numbers measure. The source (https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0305536.pdf) gives it as 0.0, so I'd use that here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get why the larger planets in the table list masses in M sub j instead of M sub e, but it leads to a discontinuity as you scan down the column. If you don't notice the change of units (indeed, on the display I'm reading this on now, it's difficult to see), you would come away with an erroneous impression. I suggest using the same unit (M sub e) for all of these, even if that's not the way they're typically presented in isolation.
    Eh, I think that this would make the values meaninglessly large; most people don't visualize bodies with 100s of Earth masses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I agree, but I won't insist. RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some places you use spaces for digit groups ("10 140 +/- 11" in the table), in other places you use commas ("2,300 K"). Pick one style and use it consistently.
    Is it now standardized? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at the source closer, and see that the choice of digit group formatting comes from {{val}}. I'll need to think on this a bit more. RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From PSR B0329+54, I gather that the existence of PSR B0329+54b is questionable. You should mention that. I haven't checked all of them, but if that's true for others, do likewise for those.
    Did a rearrangement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's it for a first pass. Ping me when you've worked through all of the above comments RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered most, but some need more thought/time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did the others. May also want to do a spotcheck of the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pulsar_planet/GA1&oldid=1225665117"