Talk:GJ 3634 b/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * The lead talks about low-mass stars, yet the Discovery section talks about very-low mass stars.
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "GJ 3634 b, however, was not found to transit". Does this mean it was found not to transit?
 * It just means that a transit signature was not found. I tried to clarify. Does the new version work? --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Discovery
 * "... six years of data aided the astronomers in the discovery of eleven prior planets." I'm not quite following that; is it saying that the astronomers had already discovered 11 planets? (Planets can't be "prior", so needs rewriting anyway.)
 * Yep. I've tried to clarify it. How does it look? --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "At this point, the astronomers chose to refocus their search on short-period planets ...". at what point?
 * ✅ Clarified. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "The results helped verify that GJ 3634 was an ideal target for a planet search ...". The results of what? The previous sentence simply talks about a single exposure.
 * ✅ Clarified. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The astronomers decided to search for planets that transited, yet GJ 3634 b doesn't transit, so the story seems a bit confusing.
 * ✅ I did some moving and shifting; I also added clarifications throughout the section. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Having discovered the planet ...". Had they discovered the planet at that stage? The previous sentence says only that "Analysis of the resulting data found that the radial velocity variations most likely indicated the existence of a planet".
 * No discovery in astronomy can be truly confirmed because few objects can be directly observed. For many exoplanets, the most likely scenario is found to be that of a planet, and most (if not all) the alternatives are found to be of a very small probability. This is what happened in GJ 3634 b's case, and by this point it is practically confirmed. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "GJ 3634 b's discovery paper was published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics ...". Rather strange phrasing, is that normal for this field? Why not something like "The discovery of GJ 3634 b was reported in the journal ..."?
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Host star
 * We have five consecutive paragraphs beginning "GJ 3634", which looks a little repetitive.
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "One planet has been discovered in the orbit of the star". This is a strange thing to say in GJ 3634 b's article; we've already been told about that one planet. Is this trying to emphasise that only one planet has been discovered?
 * ✅ I merged the sentence with the next one concerning a secondary planetary body, which hopefully makes its relevance more clear. --Starstriker7(Talk)


 * Characteristics
 * Why has Mercury been chosen for comparison?
 * Mercury is a closest planet to the Sun. I wanted to compare orbital characteristics. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise that, but my slight reservation is that there's perhaps an unspoken implication that GJ 3634 b is the closest planet to it's sun, which I guess we can't be certain of. It's a small point though, and I'm otherwise satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)