Talk:HD 40307/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I've read the article and made a few minor edits. I don't really have much to say. It looks fine.

I would like an opinion from someone familiar with the subject matter before I pass it. Since Icalanise helped write the article, I will ask him to confirm the content quality of the article before I pass it. Crystal whacker (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The usual process I've seen with this is to do a point-by-point check against the Good article criteria, so maybe that should be done here. I'd be tempted to say that the article needs to be bulked up a bit, but from what I recall from when I did some research on this is that as far as is known, HD 40307 is fundamentally a very boring star (this is good for finding planets, but bad for writing substantial articles). A slight concern I have is whether the "See Also" section actually meets the guidelines at WP:SEEALSO - for example, I'm not entirely sure what relevance the MOA-2007-BLG-192L link has to this article. Icalanise (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do a whole point by point review. It boils down to references, images, and generally being well written. (Other issues such as original research or point of view don't come up in a dry scientific article like this one.) References are okay. It's well written. I didn't think about the image, but it's actually useless as shown. I could barely see the star even with the image magnified to full resolution. I'm going to try a couple of things to show it more clearly; let's see what works.

I'll look into your concern about planets and the see also section. Crystal whacker (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see why that link was placed there, and I added a one-sentence explanation for readers. I say the link should stay. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Any other concerns? Crystal whacker (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my absence from Wikipedia thus far. All I really found was a slight grammatical error, which I fixed. Does this mean the article is sufficient? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 15:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am passing the article now. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Consistency with list of extrasolar planets?

One other question: at List of extrasolar planets, the 3 planets of HD 40307 are listed as "candidate extrasolar planets." (Open that page, then Ctrl-F for 40307.) Is that information outdated? I'd move those to the confirmed planets section and add links to the individual planet articles, but I want to confirm with someone who knows the subject matter. Crystal whacker (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that we do not know the masses of these planets: the radial velocity method gives you a lower limit on the mass (usually written as m sin i, though this is technically a limit in the case that the true mass of the object is much less than the mass of the star). Since the definition of "planet" used at the extrasolar planets list is that the true mass is less than 13 Jupiter masses, unless upper bounds on the masses is found, e.g. by studies of the system's stability, putting it into the confirmed planets section of that article is incorrect (despite the fact that if you work it out, the probability that the inclination is low enough that the mass of the outermost planet exceeds 13 Jupiter masses is 2.5×10⁻⁶, and for the innermost planet it is 5×10⁻⁷ i.e. very small). This is a holdover from when the article had the word "confirmed" in the title -- it was unclear whether this meant the existence of the object was confirmed, or the object was confirmed to be a planet. I'm not entirely sure it is a good idea to split the list of exoplanets like that, but that's not a discussion for this article. Icalanise (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)