Talk:HD 189733 b

To be more user-friendly
This planet will be in the news for a time. Expressions that urgently need to be expanded to be more user-friendly to the moderately-prepared reader are: "transit depth", "semi-amplitude", "flux decrement". An appositive phrase or a footnote would do: imagine that you are writing in the New York Times Science section for a literate general public. --Wetman 23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another term that is not apparent to the educated layperson: "spectroscopically observed". As an example of an article with suitable language about this topic (HD 189733 b), see http://www.technewsworld.com/story/57321.html  --Glacialfury 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that statement. The term "spectroscopically observed" entered basic discourse in the 1970s, and is quite common in 2009.  Sounds like I'm kidding, but I'm not. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clarify some terms ("transit depth", "flux decrement", and "secondary eclipse") using parentheses, and wikilinked spectroscopically, but I had to tag semi-amplitude with  . -Wikianon (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a fan of this planet and I think I may add some content on the entry in the coming weeks. It is now perhaps even more well-studied than the famous HD 209458b. What is there now is fine, but some terms could be made more clear, as has been suggested in the past. --jjfp, 6/12/08

Controversy Surrounding the Polarimetric Detection of HD 189733 b
This is highly controversial. The amount of polarisation detected is greater than is predicted possible by models, and the result has been refuted twice now by another group using more sensitive equipment. Latest: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03588 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.163.79 (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Should the mentions of polarized light now be changed/removed? It has been refuted three times now by two other groups both using more sensitive polarimeters. http://mnrasl.oxfordjournals.org/content/459/1/L109.short — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9501:F12F:9C75:7436:C27:FDC4 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been updated throughout. The other polarimetry papers have been added and the wording in the intro and color section are more fair. I think it's fine to keep the original possible detection in there as it would have been historic and it certainly drove the field. But the excessive citations to that group with the total omission of the others made it look like an advertisement. 205.175.119.161 (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

High winds on HD 189733 b
I've just found a NASA website (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/exoplanetHouseOfHorrors.html) which says that this planet has winds which could top out at about 22,000 mph (or about 35,000 kph). Is this website a sufficiently good source to insert this information into the article (please note, I am fairly new to Wikipedia-editing, so I'm not too sure about sources yet). ResPublicae (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The high winds appear, from this article, to be a hypothesis and not a conclusion directly derived from observations. In principle the spectroscopic data that revealed the presence of the atmosphere should also be able to reveal variations in it's radial velocity (red/blue shift) and so indicate the range of wind speeds on the planet as well as the speed of rotation of the planet as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Amateur detects this with modest equipment
See http://astrosurf.com/buil/extrasolar/obs.htm

62.231.145.254 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Add info
Note to self: information from this NASA article should be included on this page. Note to others: if you have some time to do this, please do. I'm not sure when I'll have time to do this myself. — SkyLined (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Update pictures?
It's been revealed that the planet is blue (http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1311.pdf). Shouldn't the article reflect this? (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/bizarro-blue-alien-planets-color-detected-first-time-6C10600962#science/color-it-cobalt-bizarro-blue-planet-nothing-earth-6C10600962)--161.7.105.38 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How is the high temperature of the planet affecting its color? Does it reflect significantly more blue light than it emits red light due to its high temperature? --Artman40 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The colour is likely to be due to clouds (not water clouds) and Rayleigh scattering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.190.162.145 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics/Evolution
There seems to be an issue of wording in this section, but I'm not entirely sure how to repair it. It seems like the first sentence means to offer a reason why the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect would not be useful in this situation, but then defines the effect without addressing that. -- Marx01  Tell me about it 19:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HD 189733 b. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715071155/http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2007-04/release.shtml to http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2007-04/release.shtml
 * Added tag to http://www.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~sveta/papers/exoplanet_hd189733b.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a good article
After review, I've determined that this article meets the qualifications for GA status. It is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive. I'm "Mass Passing" this article. 112.120.56.187 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No, an article can't be promoted to good article status by one random editor saying so. It needs to be nominated and reviewed. In fact, you seem to have copied the above text from Talk:16 Cygni. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)