Talk:Proxima Centauri b/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CheCheDaWaff (talk · contribs) 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I plan to review this article and should be done today or tomorrow. --♫CheChe♫ talk 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary

Broadly speaking this article is ready for GA status. However, a large number of small issues are present. While many of these issues do not, in and of themselves, disqualify the article, when taken in aggregate they become a serious problem. This is especially true since many of them should be simple to fix.

The article does have some more serious problems though, chiefly the clarity of the writing (occasionally), the completeness of some of the references, and the potential violations of the manual of style guideline on weasel words. (see WP:WEASEL)

I am confident that these issues can be easily resolved in a timely manner, and the article can then be passed. Thus, I am putting the article on hold for now.

Breakdown

• Writing

1. Prose is good overall, but is occasionally unclear (listed below). I have also included a list of suggested copy edits (see bottom) that I think would improve the readability of the article.
   1. In Habitability 1st paragraph: But the habitability of Proxima Centauri b has not been established. Depending on the volatile reservoirs and the rotation rate of the planet, 3D global climate models and theoretical arguments can be contemplated. This is worded in a confusing way. Try replacing 'contemplated' with 'considered', and make it clearer that it is the habitability under these conditions is what is being considered.
   2. In Habitability 3rd paragraph: ...an initial inclination of the planetary orbit to the plane of the ecliptic could contribute to this. What does that mean? Is it saying that a 2:1 resonance is made more likely?
   3. In Habitability 4th paragraph: ...diurnally in the equatorial belt (3:2 resonance rotation). What does this mean?
   4. In Observations: The planet might be in the reach of telescopes and other techniques. What does this mean? JWST and VLT have already been mentioned, and techniques too. Is any information added by including this sentence?
2. Compliance with manual of style:
1. Lead section is very good, with one possible problem. There seem to be an unnecessary number of references for this uncontroversial piece of information: In August 2016, the European Southern Observatory announced the discovery of the planet. Since this is repeat/summery of information that appears later in the article, it would be ok to drop all the references.
2. Layout is generally good but has one potential issue. In Discovery: Does the second paragraph belong here? Perhaps the section should be retitled 'Discovery and [something]'.
3. The article contains possible weasel phrases. (see WP:WEASEL)
   1. In lead: 'Researchers think...' is vague. Is it possible to name people / groups / institutions in particular?
   2. In Observations: 'A team of scientists...' Who, exactly?
4. (N/A) Fiction.
5. (N/A) List incorporation.

• Verifiability & Original Research

1. Most references are presented in appropriate layout. But some need to be looked at (this is a simple process for many)
   1. Reference (12): "The exoplanet next door" The given quote does not support / relate to anything in the article that cites this source. It should be removed
   2. Reference (25): "The Space Weather of Proxima Centauri b". (arXiv:1609.09076) should be properly completed. Use the 'Cite arXiv' template to get this done automatically.
   3. Reference (33): "The habitability of Proxima Centauri b - II. Possible climates and observability" needs to be completed. Who are the authors? Who published it?
   4. Reference (39): "Atmospheric characterization of Proxima b by coupling the SPHERE high-contrast imager to the ESPRESSO spectrograph" (arXiv:1609.03082) should be in the correct format and include names, publisher etc. Again, simply use the 'Cite arXiv' template to get this done automatically.
   5. Reference (40): "Prospects for Characterizing the Atmosphere of Proxima Centauri b" (arXiv:1608.07345) Again, use the template to complete this reference.
   6. Reference (41): "No Conclusive Evidence for Transits of Proxima b in MOST photometry" (arXiv:1609.08718) Again, use the template to complete this reference.
2. ✓ Sources are reliable.
3. ✓ Sources support the content.
4. ✓ Likely-to-be-challenged information is cited.
5. ✓ Statistics cited.
6. Possible original research. In 'Formation': use of the phrase 'It seems implausible that'. Is this original research? If this is supported by [1] then that needs to be made clear. As it stands it sounds like an editor's opinion.
7. Possible plagiarism / copyvio. Both descriptions (which include repeated information) of the videos are lifted almost entirely from this page: [1]. It would be better to summarise this information if possible, since it is also too long. If they need to stay that long, consider providing the captions as prose instead (this will also avoid the unnecessary repetition).

• Topic Coverage

1. ✓ Addresses main aspects of topic.
2. ✓ Stays focused.

• Mostly neutral point of view, but with one problematic word. In Habitability third paragraph, use of the word 'blazing'. Please stick to factual descriptions. The analogue 'freezing' is allowable because it is a technical description.
• Stable ✓
• Illustrations

1. ✓ Images present if possible.
2. ✓ Correct copyright tags.
3. ✓ Images relevant.
4. ✓ Captions appropriate.

• Previous review issues adequately addressed (if applicable). (N/A)

• No technical issues. ✓

• Complies with WikiProject guidelines (if applicable) ✓

Suggested Copy Edits

• In lead, 1st paragraph: Instead of 'More information...' consider writing 'However, more information...'

• In lead, 2nd paragraph: Maybe reorder the first sentence as: The discovery of the planet was announced in August 2016 by the European Southern Observatory. (This makes it immediately clear what the paragraph is about)

• In Host star 1st paragraph: Like the two larger stars in the triple star system, Proxima Centauri is rich in metals, relative to the Sun, something not normally found in low-mass stars like Proxima. Remove the comma after metals, and consider replacing 'relative to' with 'compared with' / 'compared to'.

• In Orbit: ...which means the distance from the exoplanet to its host star is one-twentieth of the distance from the Earth to its own host star, the Sun. Remove 'its own host star,' (it's redundant).

• In Habitability 1st paragraph: But the habitability of Proxima Centauri b has not been established. Don't start a sentence with 'but', use 'however' instead.

• In Habitability 2nd paragraph: The red dwarf host star... . It has already been mentioned that the star is a red dwarf. Consider just using 'host star'

• In Habitability 3rd paragraph: Only here, temperatures might be suitable for liquid water to exist. Replace 'only here,' with 'It is only here that'

• In Habitability 4th paragraph: 'clement' seems like an odd word choice. Why not use 'hospitable'? Also, '...from such a configuration' is redundant. Consider removing it.

• In Habitability 4th paragraph: In a world including oceans, with average temperatures similar to those on Earth, assuming an atmospheric N2 pressure of 1 bar and ∼0.01 bar of CO2, a wide equatorial belt (non-synchronous rotation), or the majority of the sunlit side (synchronous rotation), would be permanently ice-free. This sentence is very clunky. Consider removing the comma after 'oceans' and moving the 'assuming...' clause to the beginning of the sentence.

• In Observations: Consider expanding some of the acronyms (in particular, put James Webb Space Telescope in place of JWST, and expand VLT).

• In Observations sentence 2: why is there an 'and' here? It's not clear how (or even if) the clauses relate to each other

• In Observations: Although no current technology allows a detailed observation of Proxima b, the potential habitability of the planet prompts the development of mechanisms and techniques to achieve new discoveries. This sentence seems vacuous and should probably be removed.

• In Notes 2nd note: remove brackets around 'intensity at the planet's distance'. This information cannot be removed, so it should not be in brackets. More importantly, it being in brackets makes the meaning harder to understand.

--♫CheChe♫ talk 20:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nergaal: It's been a week now and there's been no response. I appreciate that you might be busy, and I still believe this article can be brought up to a pass, so I'm going to keep this on hold for another week. (Sorry if that seems nagging) --♫CheChe♫ talk 00:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey thank you very much for the detailed review. I haven't spent much time here due to RL. It's fine with me whether you want to close it now or wait. Regardless, when I get back on this site I will work on all your suggestions that will not be fixed by that point. Again, many thanks! Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I don't think it's a good idea to leave nominations on hold indefinitely, so I'm going to fail this article . But if and when you or anyone else decides to renominate, just ping me and I'll be able the re-review the article in no time, saving you the hassle of having to wait for another reviewer. Happy editing! --♫CheChe♫ talk 17:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)