Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of nearest exoplanets/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 12:22, 30 March 2015.

List of nearest exoplanets

 * Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting list I've worked on which I believe passes WP:FL? I hope reviewers will check it out. Thanks for any feedback! Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Huh, the ping didn't actually ever send anything to me. You might try it again for the others. Anyway, I supported last time, so I Support again. Thing I noticed this time:
 * "A total of seven planets has been suggested for Gliese 667 C (but only two have been confirmed)" - the aside sounds better to me without the "but"
 * If this review (hah) is helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology FLC down below. -- Pres N  20:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Planets d, f, and g for Gliese 581 are not simply unconfirmed, but have been basically disproven at this point, so I would remove them completely. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be fine removing f and g, but if d is indeed retracted, wouldn't e become the new d? Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was an extensive discussion about this earlier on Talk:Gliese 581 and Talk:Gliese 581 e. The consensus was that, due to the fact that scientific studies still refer to the planet as "e", the article should stay at "e". Anyways, I've made the change, so now I support this nomination. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments. This is an interesting list but I have some doubts about it.
 * I am not clear why nearest is taken as 50 light years and I do not see any explanation. Why not 100 light years or 20 parsecs. I think you need either to justify the limit or change the name of the article to "List of explanets within 50 light years".
 * I wanted a round number that contains a manageable number of planets. I think 50 ly is round enough, and at around 100 entires is a manageable list. Going to 100ly I think is a bad idea since it would have around 8x more planets which is way too much for the scope of the article, while 10 ly would be too little for the list to be relevant. A parsec is a meaningless value to a layperson so I strongly prefer using ly increments. List of nearest stars for example contains only up to 5 ly and does not say "list of stars within 5ly". Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * List of nearest stars redirects to List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs. This is out to 5 parsecs, not ly, and List of nearest bright stars is to 15 parsecs. Neither is an FL. I think the article name should be "List of explanets within 50 light years". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what would be gained my the title change. What do others think? Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a good deal of 'recentism' in the article. The opening sentence "Astronomers have identified a total of 65 exoplanets within 50 light-years of the Solar System," will become outdated when the next near exoplanet is found. It should be "as of date..." This also applies to many statements in the lead and note d. I would suggest a note stating that all statements in the article are "as of ..."
 * Good catch. I tried to put a year by each count. Nergaal (talk)


 * There are no references for much of the lead and note d.
 * Which parts of the lead? For note d there is a sentence in the criteria section: "For the purpose of this list, an exoplanet is regarded as unconfirmed when there is only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, but there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence." Many of reported objects sometimes even are confirmed by some other scientists only to be later disproven or reclassified. Basically I don't want to inflate the count with planets that only are reported in xarchiv until at least some review later discusses it (or better said, somebody with knowledge in the field took that xarchiv report seriously). Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no refs at the end of the first 3 paragraphs. Note d says "This recently-discovered exoplanet is regarded as unconfirmed as there is only a single (primary) report discussing its existence." You need a ref for this specific exoplanet, not just the general principle. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Each time note d is used there is a reference to one of the databases, which seems to list all the papers pertaining to that planet's entry. Note d comes only when there is a single link in that database. As for refs at the end of intro paras I don't think it is necessary. I put refs only for specific measurements, while for "counting" of things done in this list I did not put one. Most FLs have statements like "there are x many things" (implying that they are listed below) that are not explicitly referenced. That works fine, but the only real disadvantage for this list is that it gets updated a few times a year, so whoever makes the update has to change this count without having an easy reference to cross-check the updated number. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The only ref for the number of 65 exoplanets in the opening sentence is a list of visible stars within 50 ly, which is not the same thing, and it is not clear that this source is WP:RS. Out of the 4 sources listed in note a, the first two do not appear to list distance (although I may be missing something due to lack of technical knowledge), and 3 is a dead link. In 4 the list of confirmed planets in the NASA source has the distance column blank for half of them. If you are assuming that any where the distance is unknown must be over 50 ly away this must be justified.
 * note a is the ref for the number 65, and is a RS in the sense that they do not have thresholds for specific distances. What I did is go through all those 4 links and comb for items within 50 ly. For 1 you have to click "all fields", so I added that link too. For 2, you have to click "+" on the right side to get the "DIST", but that option is only saved as a cookie (so I cannot have a direct link to it). I could try to put a note to the ref entry if you think that is what it needs. 3 was live less than a month ago, but fixed it. Same for 4. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand "is a RS in the sense that they do not have thresholds for specific distances." On the other points I think you need to spell them out in the note. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the 4 databases split their entries by distance from the Sun. They all contain some 1k+ entries with all the known exoplanets. This list is a trimmed version of those lists, containing only 65 + 35 entries, so in that sense it is a RS. Updated each of the 4 links. Let me know if there is anything else.Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the table 'Systems visible with the naked eye'. How can they be visible when half of them are listed as not having a visible host star? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The column is "Visible host star?" and split by Yes and No. Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you showed the table heading with a question mark as 'Systems visible with the naked eye?' it would be clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. . Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

sorry for late replies, I somehow missed your review in my watchlist. Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nergaal (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and I would appreciate any feedback. Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As to the article's name/scope? I'm persuaded by your argument that 50 ly gives you on the order of 100 entries, while 100 ly would be ~800 and 10 would be ~5. Any cutoff point would be arbitrary; I'm fine with where you've chosen it and I don't think that you should make the title needlessly complex, since that doesn't change the arbitrary nature of the cutoff point. If you meant you wanted feedback on something else, let me know, since I already supported. -- Pres N  22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any non-arbitrary cut off in the literature, so there is nothing wrong with 50ly. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Mattximus (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly there's been little interest in this nomination. It's of the age where it's better to archive and start anew. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.