Talk:Gliese 876 d

Gliese 876 d has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 28, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 18, 2008	Good topic candidate	Promoted
February 20, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
December 16, 2014	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Good article

Orbit[edit]

This article talks about "extremely eccentric" orbit, yet lists the eccentricity as 0. That's confusing. I think the e=0 comes from Rivera et al.'s discovery paper (2005), where they fixed the eccentricity to zero in their model. Does anyone have a better dynamic model that shows a real eccentricity? --Alfredw (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalog of Nearby Exoplanets says, in footnote l, that it has no real eccentricity. --Zimriel (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Properties[edit]

Can we have a moratorium on temperature and radius speculations in planetboxes? Gliese 876's planets do not go into secondary transit behind their sun (like Gliese 436 b), and are not hot enough to reflect hotter temperatures on one side than the other (upsilon Andromedae b). Hypothetical temperatures can go into the main text with the reasoning behind them ("if the atmosphere was like this and the albedo was x, then the temperature will be y").

I don't like edit wars but this stuff annoys me. Wikipedia isn't Extrasolar Visions, boys and girls.--Zimriel (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would also recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celestia Image[edit]

A screenshot from Celestia containing a guess at the appearance of both the star and its planet, as well as no indication of scale, doesn't add anything useful to this article. I think it should be removed. 121.45.217.207 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo to add?[edit]

I don't know if it should go on this page, but here is an image recently released by NASA, it's drawn by an artist, but still.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120429.html

I am not good with inserting images, so I will leave this for someone else. 76.19.18.25 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that this picture is more speculative than informative, it is not a NASA work and is copyrighted and thus not suited for uploading to Wikipedia. -- Karl432 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]