Talk:Kepler-11f/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "sunlike" is this word correct?

Yup. Seems like a good way to describe the star, given its mass, radius, metallicity, and effective temperature. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant that it is not a word in the Webster dictionary [1]. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary.com includes a number of English dictionaries, and several of them say that sunlike is indeed a word - [2] --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Kepler-11f has a mass lower than that of water."

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• " It is the furthest of the inner planets." this is confusing for somebody reading the article for the first time

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "flagged as a potential transit event" this sounds incorrect; the start is not an event

Well, it starts being known as a KOI when a transit event is present, but I removed "potential" per that definition. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 09:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that. I meant the star was tagged not AS an event, but FOR a transit event. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It has been dealt with. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Cygnus" wikilink

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 09:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "a G-type star" add like our Sun

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "iron content (metallicity)" I think this is wrong. Metallicity includes everything above helium, including oxygen

Metallicity represents the content of all metals in a star, but [Fe/H] (the measurement used for metallicity) only measures the content of iron in a star. In stars, the other metals that are heavier than lithium tend to follow similar trends as iron does as compared to the Sun. The only way to get a totally accurate measurement is to measure the concentration of every single metal from helium up, but this is too impractical. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying they looked just for the iron absorption lines, and not for stuff like oxygen? Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• "far, the gravitational " missing that

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 09:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "that allowed the masses of Kepler-11's other planets does not affect it." not sure what this means

 Done It doesn't really relate to the article much anyways, so I removed it. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 09:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "at 2.3 times the mass of Earth" talk in the text how the actual value is between 1.1 and 4.5; this is notable due to lower limit

I'm not sure if its particularly notable, given that PSR B1257+12 A is 0.02 times Earth's mass. I put in the lower and upper bounds, though. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 09:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The uncertainty is really large, and I think whenever a planet is close to being Earth-sized around a Sun-like star (not a pulsar) it should be mentioned. Too often people forget about confidence intervals, but an encyclopedia shouldn't. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. It has been  Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• "system at 2.61 " missing comma?

A comma is not supposed to be there. I tried to address it by adding "radius" in place of "that." --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "~0.7" put about not ~

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Saturn" wikilink

It seemed to make more sense if it Saturn was mentioned in the lead, so I added it into the lead and wikilinked it there. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• did anybody say how come something as close as Mercury can have so much hydrogen and helium around a star as bright as the sun? I thought venus does not really have an atmosphere because it is roasted bu the Sun.

I suppose you meant Mercury here. :P

In the case of Mercury, it is not very massive, and as such was unable to grow to a size where it could accrete gases. On the other hand, the Kepler-11 planets are all larger than Earth. Because many of these planets formed so early in the system's growth and had such large cores at that time, they were able to accrete significant atmospheres and probably ices (water, methane, etc.) as well. Kepler-11c - f have still been able to hold on to such an atmosphere. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 09:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. might be worth putting such a footnote in the article for other people who might find this surprising. use <ref group=note></ref> and at the bottom <reflist group=note> or something like that. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I just looked deeper into Mercury's history, and it seems that it is a lot more complex than I previously thought. I synthesized my previous knowledge of metallicity and the like to tell you what I believed at the time. (Silly me and my original research bout...) Turns out that the reason why there seem to be no sources on the formation of its atmosphere is because there's no way to really tell; the planet was most likely hit by a large iron-packed planetoid that drastically changed its composition, blowing away its lighter outer crust and any atmosphere it might of had. My apologies for misleading you. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also, is the surface temperature known?

 Done Added. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mention but below that of Venus. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done, but Kepler-11f has a higher equilibrium (black-body, as it is said here) temperature than that of Venus by nearly three times - 544 K (Kepler-11f) / 184 K (Venus) = ~ 2.95. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• put the "Denise Chow (4 February 2011" into the text pls

 Done Incorporated. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 09:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)