Talk:Kepler-11g/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "that is purposed with searching for" a bit awkward
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "lanets orbiting Kepler-11" change the name to "star" so there is less instance of the "Kepler-11" name being repeated
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "the Sun" wikilink
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Kepler-11g is the outermost of the six planets orbiting Kepler-11, orbiting at a distance that is nearly half of mean distance between the Earth and the Sun every 118 days, placing it at a distance that is much further from its host star than the system's inner five planets" split this into 2, too long otherwise
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Jupiter" wikilink, Earth maybe also
 * ✅ Wikilinked both. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "flagged the star for a potential transit event, in which tiny and roughly periodic decreases in the star's brightness are measured as it passes in front of its star as seen from Earth" this sounds wrong. who is it? change to "for potential transit events by planet-like objects. This is accopanied by small and roughly... "
 * ✅ However, I did not include the "planet-like objects" portion because the nature of the transit, which could be a fluctuation in the star's behavior or perhaps something like a white dwarf, is not confirmed until future study. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * " from the host star" => add starting with the letter b
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "although there remains" split this into a separate sentence
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * what sort of confidance there is that this planet is real, and it is not the case of a binary star? Expand please, since if the planet does not exist, it is notable
 * ✅ The reported likelihood of Kepler-11g not being a planet is less than 1% and has been added to the article. Nstock (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Kepler-11 has an effective temperature of 5680 (± 100) K, also similar to that of the Sun, although it is most likely cooler than the Sun." how can it ahve the same temperature but be cooler?
 * The Sun's effective temperature is 5778 K, which places it at the upper end of the confidence interval. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then remove the cooler part since it is confusing/misleading. 100 K out of 5000 is nothing. Nergaal (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the best estimate for temperature, Kepler-11 is slightly cooler. Saying 100K out of 5000 is nothing is a subjective statement (even a difference in temperature as small as this has consequences for things such as the ice line and habitable zone). I have reworded the sentence slightly, hopefully making it is less confusing Nstock (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * how far the star is from Earth?
 * ✅ --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "almost half of the distance from which Earth orbits the Sun." and later "Kepler-11g orbits Kepler-11 at approximately half of the distance than that of Earth as it orbits the Sun"
 * Forgive me, but I don't understand what you are asking here. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Repetition within the same paragraph. Nergaal (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nstock (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * what sort of density does the planet is estimated to have, and how many other Jupiter-sized planets are known with this density?
 * Its density is not known because its mass cannot be effectively established by current means. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Min mass, check. radius, check. => min density, should be check. Nergaal (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an inaccuracy here: 300 Earth masses is the upper limit, not the lower one. The article has been corrected and the discussion expanded to explain how it's gotten. With regards to the density, the authors of the discovery paper never comment on the density. The upper limit of density based on the maximum mass is 35 g/cm^3... so we can rule out the planet being made of degenerate matter or the heaviest radioactive elements on the periodic table. Nstock (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Try adding a footnote. Are there other planets with this sort of upper limit densities? Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this upper limit density is based on my own calculation, wouldn't including it be borderline original research? But it's also a fairly absurd upper limit: there is no precedent for a planet being anywhere near this dense. Nothing is learned by stating it. 35 g/cm^3 is much denser than iron (7.9), lead (11.3) or pure gold (19.3). Literally, there is no reasonable way of making a planet that even approaches this limit, which is why I suspect the discoverers deliberately exclude an estimate of the density for Kepler-11g, but have densities for the other 5 planets (see Table 1 of the Lissauer paper). Nstock (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)