 | Kepler-10c has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
 | Kepler-10c is part of the Kepler-10 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
GA nomination 21 August 2011
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-10c/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are the issues I found with this article:
- "In January 2011, some four months prior" prior to the discovery? It's mentioned in the lead but starting off with that's still a bit odd, I'd just remove the 4 months part.
- It still felt awkward after removing the 4 months portion, so I nixed the whole phrase. How does it look? --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- "allowed the Kepler team to rule out the majority alternatives" majority of the alternatives
- link triple star system.
- Per MoS, don't have Ref #4's title in all-caps.
- All set. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll put the article on hold and pass when the issues are fixed. Should only take like 5 minutes to modify so nothing big. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Don't forget the ice
editAll the press about this one seems to have missed the point in the paper [1] that the predicted composition has 5–20% ices by mass, which is far higher than for the terrestrial planets: the value for the Earth is roughly 0.04%. Based on predictions for a pure water envelope, they expect most of this will be in the form of high-pressure ice phases. (It would not surprise me if taking into account a more realistic composition that incorporates the fact that there's likely a bunch of other stuff mixed in with the water would end up getting different results, but we must wait for follow-up studies...) 77.57.25.250 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's high temperature ice, though right? At 485 Kelvin, that's only possible due to extremely high gravitational pressures. In other words, it really is "hot ice".
- It's interesting that it can have that much ice in spite of being (probably) denser than Earth This seems to be due to the extreme gravitational compression for 10c, according to Figure 8.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Size
editWould this article benefit for having a size comparison image on how Kepler-10c compares to Earth? --Artman40 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done. — Aldaron • T/C 13:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. Should we add artist's impression of this planet elsewhere? --Artman40 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. I think the often go well in sections where atmosphere and other characteristics like temperature are discussed (as long is it is clear in the caption that they are "artist impressions"). — Aldaron • T/C 00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- That would go there nicely. Now is there information on how the scientists think the planet might look like? --Artman40 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)