Talk:Planet Nine/GA1

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

Reviewer: Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll give a full review on Planet Nine towards the end of the week/this week end, but I will state outright that I'm concerned a bit about WP:RECENTISM. Going off a revision I read a while ago (the article may have significantly evolved since), the Mike Brown et al stuff is mostly fine, but it's still very heavily drawing upon the results of one research team, and one single article. They've got plenty of commentary from the astronomical community at least confirming their work is good and convincing, but having independent peer-reviewed sources doing confirmation/follow up on Brown et al's hypothesis will be crucial for a pass/fail on the broadness, neutrality, and stability criteria. Likewise, Mike Brown's personal assessment of likelyhood of existence needs to be balanced by what the astronomical community at large thinks.

I will stress, however, that this preliminary review is based my remembering of what this article was like a week or two after the announcement, and my actual review will be based on the live version. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The article has stabilized quite a bit in the past few weeks, and I think it is actually really well developed for a hypothetical subject. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Review
I've had a go at resolving some of the issues; I believe there are error bars on the predicted path of Planet Nine, but I would want to confirm it with someone else before including them.  Serendi pod ous  10:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the term "first" proposed in 2014 in Lede can be contentious we should avoid using adjectives like FIRST in this context as it can be inaccurate. we should find a better way to summarize "early speculation" data in the Lede J mareeswaran (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll give another review this weekend. I can delay by more if more time is needed to work on the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So is the article ready for another review, or do you need more time? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 3a, 3b and 5 have been fixed. Not sure about 4, but seems to have been dealt with. Nergaal (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll review it again this weekend then (Friday?). Sorry, I missed the notice in my watchlist around April 1 apparently. Right now my main concerns would be making sure the article is up to date with the new publications of Brown (or was that only announced, but not yet published?) since my review, and follow up studies/discoveries. Again this is a provisional comment, and may not reflect the current state of the article, but I thought I'd make it to let people know what I'm going to be looking for, so if there's work that needs to be done in that area, you'll have a few days to make it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: The talk page is full of discussions of recent announcements and from what I've seen, whatever sticks does end up in the article. I expect while there is interest in teh subject the article to have a few constant editors making updates. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as how things are finally slowing down on the talk page, I'd make a decision on the review end one way or the other at this point. Wizardman 15:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll resume my review soon, but the issue I have with it is mostly every time I take a look at this page for a review, something new comes up, e.g. . It's super hard to judge the 'stability' criterion because things are nowhere near stable, but not because of any editor-based cause. Is there a guideline on how to review GAs for ongoing events? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, I've asked Wizardman to comment, since he's been around GA for a very long time, and might know of such a guideline or other precedent regarding articles where new information could come at any time. So far as I can tell, the "stability" criterion doesn't consider this sort of situation to be an issue, being solely concerned that the article does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. New findings are not a content dispute, but rather new scientific information to be incorporated. It could be years before the data is accumulated that proves or disproves this particular hypothesis, but that doesn't mean a GA-level article can't be written about the current state of research. In this case, it appears to me that a full review of the article as it stands now is in order; this review has been open for over four months, far longer than any other. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not just the sort of 'well, things could be different in a month', it's that every time I sit down to take a look, a new paper comes out and needs to be incorporated in the article, which usually takes about a week to do well and whoever maintains this article usually does a good job of keeping up with the news. E.g. had this new discovery not come out (and that the implications are legit/sound and make planet nine more unlikely), the article would be up to date and very likely end up with the GA stamp. But now it's not, and needs to be updated (assuming this new discovery and its implications are legit and not just the press having a conniption) to get the GA stamp of approval.


 * I could always do a review, and sort of give a general "I trust the maintainers will update things with recent findings accordingly over the next few days as they have in the past". However, if Planet Nine received a severe blow to its likelyhood, it might imply a major rewrite is in order. But I'll wait and see if Wizardman has any advice here. I'll ping and  to see if they have feedback on the new findings. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Case in point: just came out. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of GAs and even FAs on stuff that is a developing story. It's been half a year and still no confirmation. If this is rebuked in 10 years doesn't mean it can't be a FA until then. As long as the structure of the article doesn't change much (i.e. subsections are added but within the existing sections) you can consider this article stable. Nergaal (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't that things can potentially change, the challenge is that the situation is changing as I review the article. This is actually the third time I try reviewing it in the last few months, but I always give up because whenever I have time, the article is undergoing an editing spree to incorporate the new details. 2015 RR245 potentially considerably changes the game. I'm no celestial dynamics expert, so I can't determine what exactly the effect of this should be on the article, but as of now, the article doesn't address the issue. And I haven't even read yet.
 * I can certainly review what is currently in the article, and then leave the update for the most recent research as an open question to be discussed/resolved towards the end of the review. Or we create a sort of divide between published and preprint papers, and create a later section on 'ongoing research efforts' or similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's important to note that just because a new paper appears on Arxiv, that doesn't mean we're going to include it- Arxiv papers are not peer-reviewed and it's really up to the discretion of the authors whether or not to add them.  Serendi pod ous  10:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Review, July
With apologies for the delay, here is my GA review.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1a.4 the objects are "objects in high-perihelion and moderate-semi-major-axis orbits"
 * fixed 1a 1 and 3
 * 1a.2 this is the best fit of a simulation. At least in the xarchive document they do not give error bars.
 * 2b 3 months is not that much at least in some fields. i think that is the point of a preprint.
 * 6b somebody seems to have fixed this


 * With the latest round of edits, I have no qualms giving the GA thumbs up. I still think the section supported only by the preprint is weak, but this is all in all a minor quibble, but nothing that should prevent the GA from being awarded. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)