Wikipedia:Peer review/TRAPPIST-1/archive2



I've listed this article for peer review because it was at FAC but folks there recommended some work on prose before a FA nomination. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

From FAC
I'll give this a look, seeing as there hasn't been much activity here in several weeks and I've done a bit of reading about this rather fascinating system recently. Here are some initial observations on a first read-through – more to gradually trickle in. ComplexRational (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The English variety is not 100% clear: for instance, (en-GB) and  (en-US) are both present, though groups of spellings seem internally consistent.
 * Oxford spelling? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that could be it. In that case, could it be codified on the talk page? ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do try to stick to en-GB in my writing but sometimes the fact that English is my second language strikes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are lots of short paragraphs; if possible, expanding or combining them may be better stylistically.
 * Did it for two paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Et al. should not be italicized.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made a number of minor copyedits to the article (mainly grammar, formatting, and other MOS stuff). I'll probably do a full top-to-bottom overhaul; there are a couple of small things I can fix without noting here.
 * The edits so far seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The references should have consistently-formatted dates – I see a mix of year, month-year, and month-day-year, along with dates such as "2014b". Since most of these are journal articles that may not have an exact publication date, I think best practice is to only give the year.
 * Likewise, either write out first names consistently or use only first initials consistently. Again, I believe the latter is easier to implement.
 * Hmm, I need to ask if availability of information gives allowances here for the slightly inconsistent format as not all citations have the same information available and it would be a lot of work to cut the names and dates. "2014b" is because there are two sources with the same sfn name; I believe this is the accepted way to disambiguate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just checked several style guides, and indeed this is the way to disambiguate in APA. However, they also indicate that all sources should have an alphabetical index, so in this case "2014a" and "2014b" instead of "2014" and "2014b". ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A source review should be done (I'd be willing to take it on), though the sources look solid and reliable at first glance.
 * Defining technical terms, as done here, is great for fostering understanding among non-experts. I wonder if any can be worked into the text to have more complete paragraphs and fewer footnotes. (I see that it's already done with Alfvén surface, for example.)
 * Aye, that one was easier to fit into the sentence flow than others. I am a bit wary that integrating the other footnotes can't be done without constantly jolting the reader away from the flow of the text towards a definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I'll go through each of the footnotes individually and highlight if and where I feel this can be done. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly, some of the non-definition footnotes could be integrated into the main text, also addressing my point above on short paragraphs. As an example, note [u] explains in greater detail why exomoons are unlikely, while the paragraph containing this note is one (long) sentence spanning two lines. Merging this note would flesh out the content and prevent a section from awkwardly containing a solitary sentence.
 * OK, this specific example (and the one about Bourrier et al 2017 below) is a bit tougher since the footnoted information has a bit less WP:WEIGHT than the rest of the paragraph, but not so much less to justify a complete omission. Thus I have a slight concern that putting it into the paragraph or cutting it completely would give it undue weight/too little weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the Bourrier note is good as is. I can see your argument, though will also note that the paragraph is short and a run-on sentence and can viably be expanded (split and elaborate?) from available sources. If some of the other studies that cast doubt on the presence of moons are discussed in greater detail, I'd think undue weight would no longer be a problem. ComplexRational (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but it doesn't seem that currently there are any. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article seemingly fails to mention that the discovery of the planetary system was announced in 2017. It's hinted at in the lead, but since this is the date widely reported in the media, it should be mentioned.
 * Problem is that the planet system was first reported in 2016 not 2017. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see there is some confusion here, even among publications. Indeed, the presence of exoplanets in the TRAPPIST-1 system was first reported in 2016, while in 2017 the number of confirmed planets rose from 3 to 7 and the system was announced by NASA (even though, as the article correctly states, they were not the discoverers). This seems to offer some clarity. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that often discoveries are announced the year after they were actually made (e.g the planets were first sighted in 2015 but identified as such only in 2016). I am not sure that the exoplanetarchive is strictly correct - Gillon et al. 2017 claims that the initial "TRAPPIST-1d" signal was actually a combination of the other planets, not the actual TRAPPIST-1d. I've expanded in the lead section to make this clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if briefly, I feel something should be said about N-body simulations of the system. This is a fundamental aspect of research into the system's long-term stability.
 * Expanded on this sentence a bit. Do you want more? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks better now, in that I don't see a glaring omission. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * – how dense is "dense"? Especially considering the following statement,, this bit of prose feels almost self-contradictory as written. I'd recommend combining these to precisely quantify the star's density and compare it (as "unusually low") to the average for M dwarfs.
 * Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * – the Solar System will almost certainly still exist in a few billion years; this should be reworded to more accurately reflect the later evolution and death of the Sun.
 * Rewrote that. Do you want a more complete description of the fate of the Sun? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Better now. I'd still expand it slightly to read and move up the footnote defining main sequence. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * – does the source group all four (d, e, f, and g) as potentially habitable, or does the four result from overlapping sets of three?
 * The latter, different sources have different ideas of what is habitable and what is not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * – this statement dates to 2017; have there been any updates?
 * Not yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * – should pre-planet disk read protoplanetary disk? The former term is rarely used in the literature (and is not used in the source cited). ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It should link to it, certainly. I've stuck with "pre-planetary" since it's a touch less technical than "proto-planetary" and a synonym, but you or anyone else can change it to proto if they see it as better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording because I feel the proto- prefix combined with the link should make it sufficiently clear. ComplexRational (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a whole lot that I see right now. One thing I did notice is that the images are missing alt text for accessibility (licensing looks good), and some sections would benefit from images (also to not have a wall of text) – some suitable images could be File:Possible Interiors of the TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanets.jpg (interior structure) and File:Curvas de luz de los siete planetas de TRAPPIST-1 durante su tránsito.png (light curves from which they were discovered), among others. I'm planning to read through the whole article again, and there are a few minor formatting things I intend to address, though I'm seeing improvement. As I do that, are there any things you'd like me to look at specifically? ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In light of this by it's mainly the prose I am concerned about. Adding ALT text, with an eye towards replacing the information conveyed by the image, but I don't see how to add it to the starbox image. Also didn't add it to File:PIA21428-TRAPPIST-1-Comparison-SolarSystem&JovianMoons-20180205.jpg because the caption already gives that information and I am not sure what ALT text would be ideal for File:PIA21427 - TRAPPIST-1 Planetary Orbits and Transits.ogv.  I did see File:Curvas de luz de los siete planetas de TRAPPIST-1 durante su tránsito.png but I don't think it would add anything. Which section would File:Possible Interiors of the TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanets.jpg be suited for? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick response to the last point – I'd put that file where File:PIA21428-TRAPPIST-1-Comparison-SolarSystem&JovianMoons-20180205.jpg is currently located (in section Size and composition) and relocate the original file to section List of planets, where it can supplement (or even replace) one of the existing files. I'll write a more complete response addressing the remaining points in the next day or two. ComplexRational (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I am probably asking too much, but if you have second opinions on whether to use these sources it would be nice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those sources appear reliable, so generally I'd say go for it. My only word of advice would be to keep the article focused on pertinent information – a few details such as the notes about tardigrades and Fibonacci numbers are certainly interesting, though I find them harder to include without giving undue weight.
 * On a different note, I see that several other users have substantially (copy) edited the article, though haven't offered any feedback on this page. I generally agree with their edits and will let you know if I see anything else. ComplexRational (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've posited a question on one of these edits here. It's been repeatedly done so I've opened a talk page discussion on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Continuation

 * A few values should be checked for consistency – most notably, the system is reported as 39.1, 40, and 40.54 light-years away. The most recent or precise value should be used consistently, and if there are several conflicting measurements, they should clearly be reported as such.
 * I don't understand where the infobox value is coming from. Also implied on the talk page that it needs to be updated. For now, I'll write the Gillon value. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think using the Lienhard et al (2020) parallax is fine, although Gaia EDR3 or DR3 would probably be better. Better still now that it is consistent throughout the article.  I fixed a light-year rounding issue in the lead. Lithopsian (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

ComplexRational (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * – although the source uses weight percent, technically it should be mass.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Section Life, in my opinion, would read better as prose. There are several distinct aspects to focus on (break into paragraphs), namely habitability of red dwarf systems in general, the specific nature of the TRAPPIST-1 system, and which planets are believed to have the most favorable conditions for life (with respect to each other and to Earth; see also my next comment) as described in specific studies – especially for different types of life on different planets, this last point could stretch longer or across several paragraphs.
 * I think that the current format - probability of finding life there, theoretical reasons for and against (as a list), search for evidence - is better. The paragraphs and list items are not quite equivalent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, each bullet essentially gives one factor with its pros and cons. A list is certainly better than 5+ very short paragraphs, so I'll leave it as is for now, though additional opinions are welcome. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * – given the layout of the section, this feels like undue weight. The term favourable planet also needs copyediting, but that can perhaps be resolved with a larger overhaul of this section. Alternatively, there are several other sources that consider TRAPPIST-1e to be most Earth-like, so expanding (explaining why) and adding said sources would strengthen this statement.
 * I did a mini rewrite. For the purpose of this article I think it's better to not dwell too much on each planet since they have subarticles; prominently mentioning the most life-friendly as a benchmark for the whole system IMO is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Maybe just add another source to demonstrate that it's a commonly held viewpoint among researchers. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The footnote on technosignatures nearly duplicates the main text, so it can be safely deleted.
 * Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * – this passage is a bit clunky. I assume it means that TRAPPIST-1 has been emitting UV radiation for longer because of its more advanced age? If so, I propose rewording to something along the lines of TRAPPIST-1 emits about the same extreme ultraviolet radiation as the Sun. Additionally, does "the same extreme" mean the same intensity? ComplexRational (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "extreme" is a problem here; it's meant to mean "extreme ultraviolet radiation" but not "extreme values of ultraviolet radiation", I am not sure how to resolve this ambiguity. But yes, it's meant to mean "much longer". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Extreme ultraviolet" is synonymous with high-energy ultraviolet, i.e., closer to x-rays than visible light. The linked article goes into greater detail. ComplexRational (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done a small rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Also judging from some of the recent edits, here are a few notes on footnotes.
 * [c] (celestial equator) can be removed completely. I think celestial equator is straightforward enough with the wikilink.
 * I think the question here is whether a wikilink renders the footnote unnecessary - it requires the reader to click away from this article and not everybody is reading it online. I've seen contrasting opinions at my previous FACses and connected discussions on this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree that having everything in one place and easily viewable is better and avoids the wiki rabbit hole. For this particular note, I felt that anyone who understands the term celestial will not seek additional explaination., your thoughts on this are welcome as well. ComplexRational (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ummmm ... sorry to disappoint, but dummy alert ... I can't figure out what it means, with or without the footnote. As someone who knows nothing of astronomy, I only know that a planet has an equator, so can't figure out how a constellation can have one, and to which planet's equator is it close. Very confusing to a dummy like me, and it's not a matter of whether it's in a footnote or whether I have to click on the link.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, perhaps the celestial sphere should be explicitly mentioned in the endnote. Perhaps a rephrasing/expansion such as The celestial equator is the projection of Earth's equator onto the sky and thus the equator of the celestial sphere. An object at the celestial equator would appear at the zenith to an observer at Earth's equator. Not sure if something like this would be too verbose, but I hope it would clarify. Do you find any of the other explanatory notes insufficient as well? ComplexRational (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I am the one who should be opining on that, because I still find the sentence above over my head, and this early in the article, the concepts should be digestible to the layperson. Maybe I'm dumber than the average bear ... but this is the very first sentence in the body of the article.  Maybe some reorganization can get other info first?   Is the fact that it is close to the celestial equator crucial for understanding the rest of the article? Can the second paragraph in the Size section be first? I scanned the other explanatory notes, and didn't see others that confused me.  I'm not sure why I am finding this one so confusing.  The idea that the equator projects onto the sky, and that far away, or why this celestial sphere is defined around Earth rather than the Sun, or why that matters, just doesn't register for me, but I know nothing of astronomy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem I had with this footnote is that I just couldn't find a source for it that explained it sufficiently. I am sure it can be made clear but I don't have a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're overthinking it? The sky (the celestial sphere) has latitude and longitude coordinates just like the Earth, with an equator dividing it in northern and southern hemispheres (and a north pole and south pole, see pole star).  Quite what it is a projection of is relatively unimportant, and to some extent arbitrary so long as we all use the same coordinate system, although we mostly use the coordinates based on a projection of the Earth's equator because that corresponds to how the stars rotate across the sky (around the Pole Star) each night.  Different planets, or the Sun, could use a different celestial equator projected from their own equator.  51.187.231.90 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, that all makes sense ... but as Jo-Jo, says how to reword with sources ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the footnotes that duplicate information in the lead of the wikilink, usually less well than the lead of the wikilink. Am I the only person who sees the little summary of a term when hovering over a wikilink?  Far more helpful than most of the footnotes, unless there is something to say specific to this star.  Or is "hovering" a thing from the past, not possible on smartphones and laptops?  I've made a small tweak to the problem sentence, but it might be possible to make it even more clear by making it longer or inserting some further reference to the fact that we are talking about its position in the sky.  Lithopsian (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My laptop only shows "celestial equator" when I hover over the link. Kind of useless, unless you mean another kind of hovering? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see a paragraph of text from the lead of celestial equator, with the lead image next to it. However, there is also a cogwheel icon that can be clicked and the previews can be turned off.  When I turn it off, it says it can be turned back on with the link on the bottom line of the page.  Not sure if this is a feature that is default-on or default-off.  Default-off would seem fairly pointless because nobody would ever turn it on without knowing about it first.  51.187.231.90 (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not possible on all devices, and we have to account for the number of articles that mirror Wikipedia ... I usually prefer short explanations in parens, but in the case of the footnotes here, they are all long enough and complex enough to not be workable in short parens. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about a source for the "five degrees" claim, or for celestial equator more generally? Five degrees doesn't need a source, the declination is minus five degrees, end of story.  51.187.231.90 (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

More to follow. ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * [g] (brown dwarf) can be partially merged with the text. After the sentence containing the note, I propose integrating TRAPPIST-1 has only barely sufficient mass to allow nuclear fusion to take place (or similar wording); I don't think it's necessary to explain in detail what a brown dwarf is.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * [n] (orbital inclination), ditto. The definition of coplanar would instead be "within the same plane", not necessary "flat", so I propose removing it. The remainder of the note the inclinations are less than 1°, making TRAPPIST-1 the flattest planetary system in the NASA Exoplanet Archive can be inserted into the paragraph; it's presented as a verified fact without undue weight.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * [p] (tidal locking) – this one can work as is, though at least the first sentence (synchronous rotation) would flow well in the main paragraph as the conclusion of equilibrium and slowing rotation.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * [r] (hydrothermal vents) can be removed entirely. Hydrothermal flows and hydrothermal vents (in the context of harboring life) are not one and the same, so the note as given is off-topic.
 * Actually, that needed a slight rewrite so they now use the same word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also fixed the link, and may review this again. It seems that hydrothermal venting does exist in this context, but is a relatively uncommon phrasing. ComplexRational (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [t] (induction heating) is a concise definition, but I feel that inserting "time-varying" into the paragraph to describe magnetic fields would be enough and render this note unnecessary.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay; I have been caught up in RL stuff and other matters on-wiki. Anyway,
 * [r] (habitable zone) – this works as is, though since the possible existence of liquid water later elaborated upon, the paragraph may flow better if the note is incorporated and existence of liquid water in the habitable zone is more naturally introduced.
 * Um, I have just moved it up to the lead - it's kind of an important term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely agreed that it is important. Moving it to the lead works. ComplexRational (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [aa] (runaway greenhouse) is not entirely on point. The primary focus should be on the positive feedback aspect of a runaway greenhouse, i.e. the planet's inability to radiate heat due to concentration of greenhouse gases, of which water vapor is one example.
 * See, I don't think that that is correct - the entire point of a greenhouse being runaway is that all the water on the planet has evaporated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I felt that the positive feedback loop (temperature rises → water evaporates → temperature rises further and faster → more water evaporates faster → etc.) is what characterizes the concept of "runaway", so mentioning it could help. Evaporation of water is a mechanism by which a runaway greenhouse results, but is not the strictest definition. This source also mentions a common misconception and emphasizes that equilibrium is not reached again until the surface temperature reaches ~1400 K, evaporating oceans and killing off life in the process. ComplexRational (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye, but the thing here is that the importance of the concept to the article isn't whether there is an equilibrium or not, but that the planet cannot hold its water under these conditions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [ae] (atmosphere of TRAPPIST-1g) could be merged with the sentence containing either moderate quantities of carbon dioxide, as it explains how greenhouse gases could prevent a snowball.
 * I've merged it down to the TRAPPIST-1h section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [af] (light curves) – good, though I wonder if this could be tweaked to directly state what a light curve is, as done in some of the other explanatory notes.
 * It can, but I don't have a source at hand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [ah] (JWST) – is it possible to specify which might not be detected?
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and one additional comment above on prose. ComplexRational (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Encore
Mostly minor things at this point. I'm quite satisfied with the improvements to the article and feel that once the last details (mentioned by myself and others) are addressed, FAC2 should be a go. ComplexRational (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (this and several other instances throughout the article) – tidal locking and synchronous rotation are not interchangeable, as in the case of Mercury. Here, in the lead, I think you can drop the second part, and in the body distinguish synchronous rotation and spin–orbit resonance.
 * I've done a slight expansion instead; as was noted in the section planet-planet tides may force a slow rotation rather than synchronicity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the lead looks better. However, section Potential atmospheres of the planets still interchanges the terms; most of the cases there only hold true for synchronously rotating planets. ComplexRational (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One word removal did it; usually non-synchronous tidal locking isn't of much importance (and is also better known as "resonance") Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as habitability goes, that is certainly the case. I just felt it was an important distinction to make – and anyone familiar with the subject matter at FAC would likely make a note of it. I do see a few more occurrences (at least 4) where synchronous rotation is the technically correct term (anything having to do with dayside/nightside, uneven heating), but also given the inconsistent usage across sources, I'm fine revisiting this at the FAC if necessary. ComplexRational (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, did some changes along these lines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – I propose adding a link to volatiles.
 * Done, I wonder if a footnote is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Volatility (chemistry) – about the property – is already linked in the lead; the one I proposed is about the compounds.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, – should it say "...such that their iron exists..."? A short footnote might help here, though I'm unsure if it's completely necessary. ComplexRational (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I reread it now and it makes sense. Nothing to do here. ComplexRational (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – change to 1.40, per the source and significant figures conventions.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – do you mean that the planet-star mass ratio in the TRAPPIST-1 system resembles both the planet-star and moon-planet ratio for gas giants in the Solar System? If so, I feel the wording could be clearer.
 * Yes. I am not sure how to make it clearer, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about The planet–star mass ratio of the TRAPPIST-1 system resembles both the analogous ratio of the Solar System and the moon–planet mass ratio of the Solar System gas giants.? I agree that this is a tricky one, and it seems that clarity may require verbosity. ComplexRational (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, but with plural moons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – I feel that "cause water to escape" reads slightly better.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – technically, the boiling point depends on atmospheric pressure (which may not be the same across all planets), so change to "its boiling point".
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – even with the source, it's not clear what "clear" means (excuse the pun). Does it mean transparent in certain wavelengths?
 * Yes, cloud free I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, could you substitute "clear" with "cloud-free"? ComplexRational (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – this is a run-on; can it be split at one of the semicolons?
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The tourism poster is a welcome illustration in that section.
 * It's not an advertisement for my image hunting skills, however (the file was added by )... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding 's comment below on citation style, I see that some published astronomy articles parenthesize the year and would recommend following suit. For example, change "According to Luger et al. 2017..." to "According to Luger et al. (2017)...". (However, some astronomy articles don't use footnotes for citations, and I believe FAC places a greater emphasis on consistency within the article.)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that the article's in pretty good shape overall right now. I might continue to make any small corrections if I notice anything, though I believe all the important points have been addressed, bar my one comment about tidal locking that could use another set of eyes. See you at FAC! ComplexRational (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

SG comments
All for now, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redundancy: The discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets had a major impact, drawing widespread attention in major world newspapers, social media, streaming TV and websites. ... major, major ... why not just ... The discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets drew widespread attention in major world newspapers, social media, streaming TV and websites.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Similar here; future ... future ... re-read for similar?
 * Why the list in the Life section, rather than paragraphs?
 * Because the paragraphs are already used for overarching discussion of life there, while the list items are for specific aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Verbosity? ". The star is located at a distance of 40.7 light-years (12.47 pc) from the Sun and is estimated to be 7.6 billion years old ... " --> ".
 * I see that the quality of my writing falls off a cliff when I am writing a very large topic on a short timeframe. Did that deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Discovery of ??? "Led to the discovery two terrestrial planets in orbit around the star."
 * Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Vague, and not sure why it is needed in the lead: "The orbital periods – the time it takes for each planet to orbit the star – have precise numerical ratios of 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2."
 * The perfect numerical correspondence is a major aspect of this planetary system and frequently discussed not only in academia but also layman sources, hence why it gets lead dibs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "causes intense planet-planet tidal interactions that could drive volcanic activity on the planets" ... the body (I think) tells us tidal activity can lead to development of life, but the lead doesn't give us an idea why this (seeming) trivia is in the lead. Also, planet TO planet tidal interaction calls for an WP:ENDASH.
 * Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:SANDWICH in Star section.
 * Did an edit, does it solve. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This solves it, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Several studies have simulated how various atmospheric scenarios would look like to satellite observations," ...
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "The sizes of the planets has been constrained by observations to range from" ... sizes have.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please ping me when ComplexRational is done and I will try to do more, but IRL stuff isn't cooperating, no promises, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

SG continuing

 * Some of the sources mercifully spare the reader by using et al, sample:
 * Cutri, R. M.; Skrutskie, M. F.; Van Dyk, S.; et al. (June 2003). "VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003)". CDS/ADC Collection of Electronic Catalogues (2246): II/246.
 * while others go on forever, making it hard to pick out other useful info or see the title, sample (73 authors):
 * Can this be standardized as we do in medical content? When there are more than five authors, they are truncated to three plus et al.  You can do that by the parameter |display-authors = ... Just a suggestion; using vancouver style authors also results in much cleaner, easier-to-read, citations ... see Dementia with Lewy bodies, sample:
 * Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
 * That method also provides the ease-of-editing option that you can just grab the author list directly from PubMed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Did this, standardizing to 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Did this, standardizing to 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Third pass

 * There was a mixed punctuation style: about half spaced WP:ENDASHes and half unspaced WP:EMDASHes; I switched to the first encountered (spaced endashes).
 * Thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this standard citation in astronomy? It just looks weird to not have the year in parens following the authors ... "Garraffo et al. 2017 computed the mass loss of TRAPPIST-1 to be about 3×10−14 solar masses per year,[63] about 1.5 times that of the Sun,[64] while Dong et al. 2018 simulated the observed properties ... "
 * It's the kind of citation I use when mentioning someone inline; I am not sure it's standard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MSH, why not just Magnetic effects as section heading ? "Magnetic effects of TRAPPIST-1"
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The final sentence of the first paragraph of the lead leaves me hanging, wanting more; then I see the second paragraph continues the thought. Might that sentence be incorporated instead to the second paragraph?  To end up with the second paragraph that is all about discovery and naming ... getting TRAPPIST to figure more prominently ...
 * The star was discovered in 2000. In 2016 and 2017, observations from the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) telescope at La Silla Observatory, and numerous other space- and ground-based telescopes, led to the discovery of two terrestrial planets orbiting the star.
 * Done? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes notes are before citations, sometimes after. (orbiting within the habitable zone[11][c] ... south of the celestial equator.[d][1]) Standardize?
 * Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Link radiation emission and density ? Not sure on this ... There is no clear evidence that any of the planets has an atmosphere and it is unclear whether planets could retain an atmosphere given TRAPPIST-1's radiation emission. The low densities of the planets indicate they may consist of large amounts of volatile material.
 * I don't think it would help, myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The prose is competent and I'm able to understand early parts of the article. I pretty quickly get in over my head, though, so don't try to help where I'm unable.

Good luck at FAC! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK; thanks. Waiting for feedback the others and maybe from before renominating, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Update
Noting here that I did some edits per a discussion on 's talk page. Beyond this, are there any follow-up issues? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Standard note

 * STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)