Talk:K2-155d

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:K2-155d/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 23:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I am here. I will review this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Problems with sources

@LovelyGirl7: I just checked your sources and found some major problems. Here is a breakdown of the sources I have issues with:

Definitely not reliable

Here are some sources you should definitely remove:

• Health Thoroughfare is not a reliable source by... well, any standard. I searched around for information about them and I could not find any mention of them on the internet aside from their own website. In fact, it appears this is the only Wikipedia article where they are even mentioned. Next I went to their website and one of the first headlines that popped up is this: Aliens On Mars – An Ancient Egyptian Statue Was Revealed By NASA Curiosity Rover. Clearly there were not ancient Egyptians on Mars and this article is just nonsense. I therefore strongly recommend you remove the citation to them as well as any information you may have gathered from them. They clearly are not reliable.
  •  Done. Removed
• Drewexmachina.com appears to be a personal blog by some man named Andrew LePage who claims to be a "physicist," but I cannot find any information about him aside from what he himself claims on the website. Since the blog is clearly self-published and there is nothing to substantiate the author's claims of credibility, it does not qualify as a reliable source. I would, once again, strongly recommend you remove the citation to it as well as any information gathered from it.

Questionable reliability

Here are some sources that I would recommend replacing with more academic sources if they are available:

• Exoplorer.com seems to be self-published by one man, apparently named Anton Telechev, who, although he is nice enough to provide a list of sources, expressly states that the site is just a "hobby project." Furthermore, not all his sources seem to be up to our standards.
• The India International Times appears (from what I can tell) to be a reputable newspaper, but, looking at their other articles about science, I am not convinced that they are a reliable source on this subject. They seem to have a large number of sensationalist articles making claims about how, supposedly, for instance, speaking Indic languages rather than English can promote longer marriages, or how leaving the house once a day can make people live longer. The problem, of course, is that there are all kinds of flawed "studies" out there (some of them published in disreputable journals that just publish whatever they are paid to publish!) that you can cite to support basically anything. Studies' results have to be replicable by other researchers in order for them to really matter. Furthermore, the site's manner of handling these studies seems rather sensationalist and suggests exaggeration or oversimplification. I therefore question whether we can really trust them.
  •  Done deal. Removed.
• Our article about them classifies extremetech.com as a blog, which presumably means that their articles are self-published. I cannot tell this for certain, though, by looking at their site, but their name does not exactly suggest reputability. They are definitely more of the "popsci" type of publication rather than serious, academic science.
  •  Done
• Fox News may not be the best source here. They often have a bent towards sensationalism and can sometimes exaggerate or oversimplify facts. It is important to remember that their target audience is overwhelmingly white male conservatives over the age of sixty-eight and that fact often reflects in their reporting. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright. It looks like you have addressed my concerns about the sources. Very good. Moving on. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Images

@LovelyGirl7: All images used in the article are freely licensed, which is good. I think that the "Size comparison" between Earth and K2-155d is very helpful and an excellent idea, but I think you should add a citation to the heading to verify that this comparison is accurate. I assume that the sources used elsewhere in the article probably already support this, but I think this will help make it clearer which sources are being used here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done deal @my friend:. . --LovelyGirl7 talk 18:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations check

I probably should have done this one first, but I have gotten into the bad habit of putting it off. I ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector on this article and it says that a copyright violation is unlikely. Nonetheless, the single sentence "The planet can maintain a moderate surface temperature if the insolation proves to be smaller than ∼1.5 times that of the Earth." does appear to be copied directly from the source. Please revise the wording to make it your own. Then we may continue with the review. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I tried to fix the sentence, but what do you think of the sentence now that I tried revising it? I can fix it again if you would like. Feel free to even send me what the revised sentence would look like, so I can fix it. --LovelyGirl7 talk 15:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Article: "The planet's radius lies between those of small rocky planets and those of larger, gas-rich planets."
  • Source: "The planet's radius falls within the range between that of smaller rocky planets and larger gas-rich planets."

• Article: "Researchers also stated that if factors like the absence of major solar flares from K2-155 turn out to also be positive, it could be habitable."
  • Source: "Researchers ... found it has the potential to be habitable, especially if other factors like the absence of major solar flares from K2-155 turn out to also be positive."

• Article: "No solar flares were seen from the star for 80 days."
  • Source: " ... no flares were seen from the star over a period of 80 days."

There may be more; the above are just examples. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sarah: I’m going to request coyediting though I’ve did a few changes, because it does just and it would even help fix the sentences. —LovelyGirl7 talk 02:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sarah: @Katolophyromai: copy editing was done on the article. Your thoughts? --LovelyGirl7 talk 12:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: LovelyGirl7 has just been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: and @BlueMoonset: I am automatically failing the article since the nominator was a sockpuppet. It is rather a shame, though; the article probably could have made it with some more work. I have to admit, there was something a little suspicious about LovelyGirl7 from the beginning; he or she (I am not really sure which the user really was) seemed almost a little too nice and the fact that "she" had the article about St. Xavier High School (Louisville), an all-male high school, on "her" list of articles "she" wanted to work on was rather puzzling to me, since people do not normally work on articles about high schools they have never attended. I suspect that he or she was probably a teenager just looking for attention and social validation. I honestly feel sorry for him or her, and wish he or she would have stayed away from sockpuppetry. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I left a brief note of advice on the user's talk page for if the user ever thinks about returning to Wikipedia at some point in the distant future. I am probably just being naïve, but I cannot help but think that he or she was surely not all bad. I looked at the "bad hand" accounts' edits and it all looked like just an immature, ill-conceived stunt for attention. The "good hand" account has made a massive number of contributions to the encyclopedia and, despite a lot of blunders, always seemed well-intentioned. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: that account made 819 edits to mainspace, including a lot of plagiarism and close paraphrasing, accompanied by other accounts pretending to be agin the main one, at least one of which was able to write coherently. It was obvious from the pattern of edits and talk-page posts that something was amiss. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi LovelyGirl7. Nice looking article.

• I have pushed the copy vio down. Earwig is below 5%. (If you don't understand that don't worry; it is good.)
• You write "The brightness of its host star makes K2-155d a good target for future studies using instruments such as the James Webb Space Telescope" From a copy edit PoV I would like to know how that relates to the preceding sentence. Ie, could the JWST be used to confirm if K2-155d "may be capable of harboring liquid water"? Also, you end the previous paragraph with "The mass of K2-155d and the brightness of its host star may be measured by future observations from the W. M. Keck Observatory and the James Webb Space Telescope". Is that unconnected to "The brightness of its host star makes K2-155d a good target for future studies using instruments such as the James Webb Space Telescope"?
• "Its radius lies halfway the similarities of small rocky planets and bigger gas-rich planets" reasonably accurately reflects the source, so I am loath to copy edit it away, in spite of it being factually wrong. That radius is a little on the small side for a rocky Earth-like exoplanet. You may wish to revise that sentence with a different source.
• "Studies have shown that the it would maintain a moderate surface temperature if its insolation is smaller than ∼1.5 times that of Earth." I nearly added what the probability of that is, but that may be pushing a copy editor's role. However, I think that it would be interesting for readers if you were to. (I don't think that doing math from sourced figures counts as OR.)

I think that I am done. I will have another look in the morning with fresh eyes. Let me know your thoughts on the second point above. Ping me if you want to know why I have made a particular change. Revert anything you disagree with. Good luck with the GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Planet d

Planet d is not in habitable zone, look this (NASA report that study). The star is a K-dawrf, not a M-dwarf.--Kirk39 (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)