Wikipedia:Peer review/Epsilon Eridani/archive1

Epsilon Eridani

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I feel like it is very good, I'm not a major contributor of it, but I think it is very comprehensive and thought with a little more work it could stand a decent chance for becoming a featured article. It could probably benefit from the attention of an expert in astronomy, and the structure of the article could use a vetting.

Thanks, Pstanton 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall I admit to doing some work on this article, but I remain somewhat unsatisfied with the content.

• The luminosity and rotation estimates in the infobox need reliable cites.
• I'm not convinced that SolStation is a reliable source for information on the proximity of other stars, as is discussed in the lead.
• The "Observation" section has three paragraphs that begin "In [year]". This seems a little vanilla and those sentences could benefit from a little creative re-ordering. Also the two SETI paragraphs are completely out of context, with no explanation as to why the search is being performed. I'd prefer to have a separate section on possible habitability and SETI searches, much as is done on the Tau Ceti article.
• The "Planetary system" section needs a little work.
  • The two asteroid belts are mentioned in the lead but not in the article body. These should be covered in some detail.
  • The last sentence, second paragraph repeats "values for its" too many times.
  • The reason for an assumed 30° inclination is unexplained. Does it have to do with an estimate of the star's inclination, for example.
  • It does not state how rapidly an asteroid belt would be cleared out if the eccentricity of 'b' is as high as is estimated. This is a young star, so this may not be inconsistent if the process takes, say, a billion years.
  • 'Epsilon eridani c' receives only cursory coverage, as compared to 'b'. It should be related to the perturbations of the dust disk.
  • How do we know that no bodies of 3 or more Jupiter masses exist in this system?
• The references need to be formatted better, especially where the base link is showing.

Good luck improving this article. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Runningonbrains Mainly a grammar check (which looks fairly good), but I have a few other suggestions.

• The last paragraph of the "Observation" section is a bit unclear: was the original "companion" another star or a planet (because the phrase "planetary companion" appears in the next sentence)?
  • On a related note, I would suggest only putting a sentence about the possible planetary system here, and leave the rest to the "Planets" section.
• "Planetary system" suggestions:
  • There's a lot of white space around the table at the beginning, can that be shifted to allow text or an image on one side?
  • Should the table note that Epsilon Eridani b is still unconfirmed?
  • It seems to me the text says both planets are unconfirmed. Maybe the "Planets" section should be renamed "Possible planets"?
  • "observations led to the announcement in 2000 of a gas giant planet" should probably say "possible gas giant planet"
  • The link explaining what i is should be moved up to its first instance of appearance.
  • The second image should probably appear closer to the paragraph on Epsilon Eridani c. I would suggest right-aligning both images and putting them at the beginning of the "Planets" section, one above the other.
  • Consider putting the paragraph about the 1964 study as the second paragraph of the section...right now it jumps around a lot chronologically.
  • In the final paragraph, "revealed observations indicating" seems clunky. How about "On October 27, 2008, a study based on observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope was released, indicating..."?

Again, these are all just suggestions, feel free to disregard anything you feel detracts from the article. I may make some more minor suggestions later, but the article looks very nice. Good luck!-RunningOnBrains 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ruslik:

1. as the night skies over cities are illuminated by light pollution I suggest because of light pollution in the cities.
2. This parallax is equivalent to a distance of about 10.5 light years I think distance in pc should also be present.
3. I think that the last two paragraphs in the 'Observation' section should be exchanged, because the first of them (currently) discusses events that took place after the events discussed in the last paragraph.
4. but only 28% of its luminosity. This is obviously luminosity in the visible light. I think information about the bolometric luminosity should be provided as well.
5. The chromosphere of Epsilon Eridani is more magnetically active than the Sun's. It is the star that is more magnetically active. As a result it demonstrates increased chromospheric activity and coronal activity.
6. Approximately 9% of the deep photosphere is found to have a magnetic field with a strength about 0.14 teslas. Is this by squire area or by some other measure? And what is 'deep photosphere'? Photosphere is actually very thin ~ 500 km.
7. that the equator of the star rotates I suggest the equatorial region of the star rotates. The equator is an imaginary line, it can not rotate.
8. with the measured periods ranging from 10.8 to 12.3 days Please, specify where the rotational period is longer and where it is shorter (latitudes).
9. Relative to the Sun, the outer atmosphere of Epsilon Eridani appears both larger and hotter. The outer atmosphere is called corona. This word is strangely not used in the article at all.
10. This is caused by a 30-fold higher mass loss rate from the star's stellar wind. This statement is wrong. It is actually the hotter more extended corona that results in the stronger stellar wind, not vise versa.
11. How the strength of the stellar wind was measured and parameters of the astrosphere estimated? If these are HST observations (I am not aware of any other) they should be mentioned.
12. The wind is generating an astrosphere It is worth mentioning that the astrosphere is the same as heliosphere in the case of Sun.
13. Have Epsilon Eridani been observed in the X-ray part of the spectrum? If it is, this fact is worth mentioning especially in relation to the coronal activity.
14. Can the table in 'Planetary system' section be made float?
15. Observations with the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope showed a extended flux of radiation with sub-millimetre wavelengths at a radius of 35 arcseconds around the star The wavelength of observations should be mentioned (850 μm).
16. A lower level of emission is also seen at 30 AU. I would say within or inside
17. The asymmetrical structure of the dust belt may be explained as the gravitational perturbation by a planet. Can you clarify what asymmetrical structure means? How it is asymmetrical? Or may be clumpy.
18. The dust disk contains approximately 1000 times more dust The assumed size of dust grains that led to this estimate should be mentioned.
19. This is similar to the estimated 10 Earth masses in the Kuiper Belt It is the first time I see such a large estimate! The estimates of the mass in Kuiper belt generally vary between 0.1 and 0.01 Earth masses.
20. Within 35 AU of the star the dust is depleted, Please, be consistent. At the beginning of the section the radius was 30 AU. This paragraph needs a citation.
21. The article should contain better summary of Spitzer results.

I did not review grammar and MOS issues, which are also present. And I hope my comments will be helpful. Ruslik (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)