Talk:Superhabitable world

Needs to be rewritten!

Hi, I was trying to read this article but it doesn't really make sense and I couldn't share it (as I was intending to) because there are two many sentences that contain incorrect grammar or just read as nonsense in English at present. In spite of the "in progress" warning at the top, I don't personally think articles should be published until they are edited well enough to serve a useful purpose. My opinion. By the way I happen to know Spanish very well, and I work professionally as a translator and proofreader, and even that doesn't help me to understand the English version - it just reads really badly. Sorry not to be more constructive, I am too busy to rework the translation myself so all I can offer is this alert, hopefully somebody out there can lend a hand to clean up what promises to be an interesting article some day! --A R King (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@A R King: Does it need to be rewritten? Maybe, from scratch? No, We just need to fine tune (reword some sentences in) the article to make more sense. Also what do you mean by I couldn't share it (as I was intending to)? Just curious. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Grammar aside, it contains massive WP:synthesis. I am fluent in Spanish and for all the goats in Kerry, I can't imagine how it could be a "good article" there —although I know for a fact their quality standards are much lower than at English Wikipedia, and they hardly care to verify the sources and context. For starters, the concept was coined and used by only one team, but it is presented as if this is the prevailing scientific consensus. Next, it hinges almost entirely on one article behind a paywall, making it difficult to verify many key claims. I will be working on this article as time allows, focusing on the science (tone, synthesis) and any original research/POV I might come across. In fact I might WP:Blow it up and start over if it gets to that. I will be open for feedback and constructive editing of course. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I just finished a general edit. It turns out that the issue of synthesis was quite minor. Most of the additions (text and references) are supporting information from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I mostly toned down the introduction and specified it is a [good] hypothesis by a pair of researchers, not mainstream astrobiology. I did an effort to translate and decipher the garbled sentences -likely forced through an automated translator. However, it may still require a proof-read by a native English speaker to improve the grammar and structure. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

24 exoplanets list?

Is there a list that contains the 24 superhabitable exoplanets recently found? I've looked everywhere I can and I can't seem to find it. EdgePatrol (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Star

Why is the graphic in Spanish on an English language page? Pretty amateurish. Not to mention that I can't understand it. 2601:41:200:5260:C98B:1C6F:3AE3:850B (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Virtually everyone here is an "amateur" volunteer. Instead of ragging on the article and spamming it with tags, maybe consider actually working to improve it more? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)