Talk:Kepler-11

New Article

Hi, I just started the Kepler-11 article, but it's a stub for now, so have at it and let's see if we can do some expanding. :) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I expect it to grow rapidly. Exciting confirmed discovery. --Hatteras (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Should change the mass from comparison with Jupiter, to Earth-like masses, right ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.62.239.14 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anything an "Ice" Giant if it's inside the orbit of Mercury on a (very) Sun-like star? 68.183.80.244 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No it makes no sense, which is why I removed it. Well that and the fact "Ice Giant" is a Solar System-specific term referring to Uranus and Neptune.

During the conference the team were keen to stress that from the inferred bulk densities most of the planets seem compositionally neither Super-Earth or Neptune-like anyway but somewhere inbetween. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

An ice giant is a planet composed mostly of ices; that is, volatiles with a melting point above 100K or so, regardless of the temperature of the planet. A hot planet close to its sun could very well be an ice giant. Jswhitten (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Very Sun-like Star, but all Earth-size planets closer than Mercury.

Relative size and positions of the 6 planets of Kepler-11 (The star a in yellow has a true scale diameter, while planet diameters are scaled up by a factor of 50)

I was just going to suggest that since the Star is so much like the Sun that this chart should have our inner solar system underneath
displayed in the same way, especially to show that all the Earth-size ones are closer than Mercury's 0.387098 AU distance from the sun.
G at 0.462 AU is also closer than Venus' 0.723332 AU orbit, but actually closer to Mercury's orbit.
24.78.172.60 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds useful, unsure when I can get to it. So we just show sun, mercury and Venus? Tom Ruen (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, another quick attempt, exported as PNG. It has to be pretty wide to include the full inner solar system. (All planets scaled up by 50) Those are big planets!!! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. However, I'd suggest to remove Mars (and maybe Earth as well) to reduce its width. You might also consider stopping the Kepler-11 "drawn line" shortly after g since the outer parts of the system have not yet been examined. After all, Kepler-11 may well have several further planets beyond g's orbit, which cannot yet be seen by Kepler since their orbital period would be too long. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Beauty, I can see the whole thing on my extra wide monitor but I agree it has extra length. I would say end just after Earth and just after G for the line. 24.78.172.60 (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, that's still too wide for normal display, I would stop at Venus for a normal article display. But for a thumbnail the length is not relevant.24.78.172.60 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Planet indirect imaging

Be glad to see any of the Hubble or other images of these planets. That would be great. 174.125.77.208 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alas, the HST will never see planets 2000ly away. These will always be statistical worlds. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hubble indeed has no chance, but future space missions may: a telescope put in the Sun's gravitational focus point opposite Kepler-11 should be able to image them, if people think the system is worth it... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

g

Why is the upper mass limit on the last planet is so high ? From it's radius and the similar distance to the star, I would guess that it's more likely to be some problem with the data/measurements and the real mass is similar to that of the other planets. Did anybody read the paper itself ? (I'm a little short on time now, I'll try to get to it next week). Thanks ! Jacobs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

[1] says The sixth planet is far enough away from its siblings that it doesn't affect their orbital dance. Instead astronomers had to run through a suite of calculations to be sure the planet exists. While the team is confident it's there, they weren't able to tease out as many details about the outlying world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.178.58 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the masses of the planets were determined by the relatively new transit timing method because a) the limits of the sensitivity of the radial velocity method and b) this is far easier with large multiple planet systems. Unfortunately g orbits at a great enough distance away from the others not to produce a detectable timing variation and so they can only give very limited constraints on what the planets mass should be. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To me it's surprising they give this high upper limit at all. Even an all-iron planet (or even all-lead) of the given size would weigh much less than 200 Earth masses. Therefore I'd suggest removing the estimate from our table since it's trivial information, and just write "Unknown" --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-11/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The article, though small, does a good job of covering the brand new subject of this newly discovered system.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Generally very good, but there are a few minor typos, capitalization, and grammar problems. For example, replace a phrase like "A and/or B" with "A, B, or both" to comply with WP:MOS.

   Could you direct me a bit more? I'm not quite sure where to start. I just read it over and it looked okay to me. (That's definitely a problem. :P ) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   All references look good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Almost perfect, but I have a question about the first paragraph in the Planetary system section. Does the reference at the end of that paragraph cover all the claims made in it?

   I believe so. This was the system's discovery paper. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Seems like it covers everything there is to know about the system so far, which isn't a lot, since we've only known about it for a few weeks.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All public domain images; thanks NASA!

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I think the images need better alt-text.

    Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is very very close; it just needs a little copy editing, some clarification on the sourcing, and better alt text for the images.

Reviewer: —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy editing

I'll bold the problem spots.

Lead

• Kepler-11 is a sunlike star in the constellation Cygnus...

I believe that should be hyphenated; also, is there anything you could wikilink that word to?

 Done and  Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Announced on February 2, 2011, the star system is the most compact and one of the flattest known, and is the first star system with more than three transiting planets to be discovered

Is there a way to rephrase this? It just sounds a bit awkward.

I've given it a shot. What do you think? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature and history

• Kepler-11 is the first discovered exoplanetary system with more than three planets transiting.

Move "discovered" to behind "system"; it will sound a little smoother.

I don't know, "first exoplanetary discovered system" sounds awkward to me. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Planetary system

• their inclinations relative to Earth's line of sight...

Caps.

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• This allows direct measurements of the planets' periods and relative diameters (compared to the host star) via monitoring each planets' transit of the star.

"each planet" is singular, so move the apostrophe in front of the "s". Also, "by" instead of "via" might be easier to read in this case.

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• The system is the most compact known; the orbits of planets b - f would easily fit inside that of Mercury...

It might be better to just say "the orbit of Mercury"

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• ...while the average distance of g from its star is about 20% larger, slightly larger than the orbit of Venus.

Try "greater" instead of larger for both of these.

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• ...while b and c probably contain substantial amounts of ices and/or hydrogen or helium.

To comply with the MoS, try something like "ice, hydrogen, helium, or all three".

 Done with some changes to your suggestion. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That should about do it. Fix those and this is a pass. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 11:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I made one more change to the lead, but it's looking good to me, so it's a pass. Congratulations! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Separate articles for planets

Do we need one article per exoplanet - will there ever be more information on them than can be provided in a orbital parameter table? It seems more sensible to add subsections to this short article as needed, unless the content volume demands it. (I've not seen any Wiki policy discussion on exoplanets, so just an opinion here.) Tom Ruen (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they should all just remain redirects to here, since we have basically no additional information about them other than what is known and listed at this article already. Maybe, years down the line, we'll know more, but at this stage, there are no real details worth splitting from this article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreement from me, but they are now made as stub articles like Kepler-11b. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204134830/http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/01/5972312-planetary-six-pack-poses-a-puzzle to http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/01/5972312-planetary-six-pack-poses-a-puzzle

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)