Wikipedia:Peer review/List of nearest exoplanets/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get some feedback on this list before I submit it at FLC.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: I fail to see the utility of listing unconfirmed exoplanets in this list. While it may be interesting if some nearby system does indeed have an exoplanet, until it is confirmed, I can't support anything more than maybe a paragraph in the star article itself and a small footnote in lists. I think that a footnote in this list would be appropriate, but listing them in the main table seems extreme to me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why extreme? I thought that systems like Tau Ceti are worth being mentioned in the table. Other than that, all the gray rows are quite close so I thought they are interesting to a reader. Plus, the difference between a confirmed and unconfirmed system is rather gray to me, since some people consider the Alpha Centauri system to be unconfirmed. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The intro is too long. A maximum of 4 paragraphs is recommended for list articles. I think you could do with less detail.
"A total of 75 exoplanets have been observed by astronomers to exist within 50 light-years away from the Solar System." The words 'to exist' are superfluous.
"as proposed by the Working Group on Extrasolar Planets of the International Astronomical Union in 2003." It is not clear what "as proposed" refers to.
"From 2000 on, more planets were reported by the astronomical community," 'by the astronomical community' is superfluous.
I would prefer ly spelled out as light years, but I do not know whether there are any guidelines on this.
"Essentially all the nearest exoplanets have been discovered by measuring the changes in the radial velocity of the host star" It is probably my ignorance, but have not any been found by variation in light intensity during eclipses?

Yes, but Kepler only looked at far-away stars - so none within 50 ly. Nergaal (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the list, presumably white is stars with single planets, but you need to have this in the key.
The statistics by host star is not clearly explained. It took me a while to work out what it is about.

Hope it is better now. Nergaal (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systems by distance - I would prefer heading 'Distance in light years' to ly on each line.
A good list overall. It should make FL in my view.

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]