Talk:Galactic habitable zone/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 03:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In the Background section, some authors' names are given as "First Last", some as "F. M. Last", and others as just "Last". Why the inconsistency? Also, where possible, it would be helpful to give some indication of who these people are and why their opinions are relevant.
 * Partially done. Uncontroversial; I will get to the rest later. 04:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading through the Chemical evolution section, there seems to be an implicit assumption that the habitable planets in question and the life they could sustain are similar to Earth and the life it supports: "In addition, ratios such as [C/O], [Mg/Fe], [Si/Fe], and [S/Fe] may be relevant to the ability of a region of a galaxy to form habitable terrestrial planets." The phrasing suggests the possibility that there may be habitable planets which are not at all terrestrial. The big question for me is this: is GHZ theory (and thus the entire article) concerned only with Earth-like planets and life? Or is GHZ theory concerned with the broader possibilities of habitability, with the exception of Earth-centered sentences such as the one highlighted above? I may not have done a great job of explaining my question here; just let me know if you would like me to clarify further.
 * GHZ theory was founded by the same people who founded the Rare Earth hypothesis, people who believe that a near-copy of the Earth is required for habitability. So yes, GHZ is very anthropocentric. Wer900 • talk 04:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it is important (for lay readers) that this point be emphasized more clearly in the article. I would even go so far as to suggest highlighting it in the lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In various places, the article reads more like a literature review (intended for scientists) than an encyclopedia article (intended for laypeople). This manifests itself in two ways. First, some sentences are written in such a way that might be easily understood by astronomers, but which do not provide sufficient context for a lay reader. Second, and perhaps more crucial to this nomination, the article seems to dedicated to explaining the contents of the papers it cites, rather than explaining the topic. A subtle difference, perhaps, but a noticeable one. Individual papers should be viewed as sources of information which should be blended together to form a coherent summary of the topic. What we have here is an article which treats individual papers as items which should each be separately summarized. Listed below are some examples of both of these issues, though I encourage you to reread the entire article and search for other problem areas.
 * "One important elemental ratio is that of [Fe/H]" Why is this ratio important?
 * ✅. Iron is a major component of terrestrial planets. Wer900 • talk 04:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "however, the team's data is inconclusive" Good for a lit review, but bad for an encyclopedia. If the data is inconclusive, why is the paper notable enough to be cited here? In an article such as this, we should strive to establish the history of the theory, the current scientific consensus (if there is one), or the most prominent views in the debate. This paper doesn't seem to contribute to any of those three, and as such, giving it its own paragraph seems to be WP:UNDUE weight.
 * The views of Blair et al. are the only ones on the distribution of molecular clouds that are backed up by specific evidence. This is the first research done into the distribution of molecular clouds in the Milky Way in the context of the galactic habitable zone, and for that reason I think that it is noteworthy in an encyclopedia. By the same token, giving a paragraph to it does not violate WP:UNDUE. Wer900 • talk 04:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in question currently only cites the paper being described, which makes it a primary source. If the paper has been cited by other papers, or discussed in other sources, those should be cited to establish the notability of Blair's paper. Otherwise, the paragraph should be rewritten to focus on Blair's findings rather than the paper itself. Does this make sense?
 * "but later work superseded his proposals." Well, duh, the same statement could be made about literally every scientific paper ever published. That's the whole point of science. Outside the context of a lit review, what makes this dude's proposals noteworthy?
 * Dr. Tucker was one of the pioneers in creating a general analysis of galactic habitability. The works of Galileo Galilei, Christiaan Huygens, and Charles Darwin have all been "superseded" and expended upon by later researchers, but those three individuals were part of the formative stages of their scientific fields. Their work is covered as part of a historical appraisal of those fields, with the later additions and refinements explained. That is exactly what is done in the present article. Wer900 • talk 04:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comments above regarding Blair et al. Here we have a claim about Tucker, which cites a work about Tucker, rather than a third party source. This is a big part of why the article reads as a lit review rather than an encyclopedia article. As a bit of a side note, this issue really shouldn't prevent an article from passing GAN. But, presumably you plan to nominate it at FAC. I can guarantee that there will be at least one editor who opposes for this very reason. That is why I am making a big deal of it now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "In addition to supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, excessive amounts of radiation, and gravitational perturbations, various other events, controversially including such proposals as "galactic tides" and cold clumpy dark matter with the potential to induce cometary impacts, have been suggested as mechanisms that can hamper the emergence or evolution of life in the Universe." Read this sentence out loud. I find it very difficult to parse, partly due to the fact that it is a thousand million words long. Also, what the hell is "cold clumpy dark matter"? No lay reader will understand that.
 * ✅. Broken into two.
 * Better. Parsing the list in the first sentence is still a bit of a chore: "In addition to [supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, excessive amounts of radiation, and gravitational perturbations], various other events have been proposed to affect the distribution of life within the galaxy." Right? Well, since some of the list items aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article, it can and should be rewritten thusly: "Gamma-ray bursts, excessive amounts of radiation, gravitational perturbations, and various other events have also been proposed to affect the distribution of life within the galaxy." Ahh, much clearer, yes? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems somewhat unlikely to me that Prantzos is the only author who published noteworthy criticisms of this theory. Where are all of the other dissenters? Or, if he really is the only one, why does he get an entire top-level section to himself?
 * ✅. Added another study by Duncan Forgan of Royal Observatory Edinburgh. Wer900 • talk 04:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm out of town for the week with a computer that is less than ideal for editing purposes. If you need clarification or further input, leave a note here or on my talk page, and I'll probably get to it next weekend or so. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't reply soon enough to this; I must have missed it in my watchlist. I will fix the other errors you found shortly. Wer900 • talk 18:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This review seems to be as done as it's going to get on both sides, and it seems most of the issues are addressed. It should be closed, but I want to make sure everything's handled before passing; if I'm misreading and there's a lot to fix, it will have to be failed. Wizardman 21:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see too many errors to fix, either. Of course, though, I'm the primary author. Wer900 • talk 03:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I see Cryptic is out indefinitely due to circumstances beyond his control, I went ahead and took another look at the article. I didn't see any red flags or anything that would be a major cause of concern, so I'm going to go ahead and pass this. Wizardman  03:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)