Talk:K2-18b/GA2

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

Reviewer: InterstellarGamer12321 (talk · contribs) 08:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

The article looks like it is in good shape. It is quite long so I will need time to have an in-depth look at it before giving my comments. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Initial comments

Are you sure that all of the concerns in Talk:K2-18b/GA1 have been addressed? If not, please fix those issues before continuing.
Yes, I am pretty sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spend some time copyediting and improving the prose, because not all of it currently adheres to WP:MOS.
Got to need some examples, sorry. There are some things that are deliberately written as they are, because the alternatives would be misleading, overlong etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main issues are with footnotes appearing before punctuation (WP:REFPUNC). Other issues are minor.
Now, my understanding has been that explanatory notes can be put after the word they explain, while citations ought to go after punctuation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note b comes after punctuation, but notes c and d come before it. It looks best if they all come after the punctuation.
Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that there are no images of this exoplanet, please confirm that there are no more images worthy of being included in the article.
I don't think there is one, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All inline citations in the article are scientific papers. While they are reliable, I would also recommend adding a few references to reliable news sources about the exoplanet for more well-rounded coverage, although you do not need to do this if you have a reason.
I prefer not to use such sources - half of what they say is already said by the academic ones, the other half seems often to be of questionable reliability. And people use news sources in one article as a rationale for adding them elsewhere even when they don't belong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

In the Physical properties section, does the term radius valley need to be redlinked and italicised?
In the Discovery and research history section, does the term Hycean planet need quotation marks?
I think so, yes, these are technical terms that need to be singled out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article and mentions in the lead call the exoplanet K2-18b. However, there are several in the body of the article that call it K2-18 b. Change them all to K2-18b for consistency.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the Atmosphere and climate section, it talks about "hazes". Should this be changed to haze?
Not sure why this would be necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are all of the error margins necessary in the body of the article? They break the flow of the article.
Yes, people often take the numbers while ignoring the qualifiers otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

The prose quality is now the only thing stopping the article from becoming GA, but it needs a decent bit of work. Comments below:

It orbits its star in 33 days,[5] from Earth it can be seen passing in front of the star. Needs a conjunction or should be split into two separate sentences.
Hmm, they are sort of related. I don't like the many short sentences thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
intermediary radii cannot hold their atmospheres against the tendency of their own energy output and of the stellar radiation to drive atmospheric escape: the "of" before stellar radiation is redundant here.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This distinction between planet populations is known as the radius valley and planets on its smaller side are known as Super-Earths and those larger as Sub-Neptunes. Specify what the distinction is and use a better term than "its smaller side".
Specified, although one would think that folks would understand it means "radius". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the planet may have taken a few million years to assemble. I feel that there is a better word to use than assemble here.
Not that comes to mind, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which might destabilize the planet's climate by preventing material flows between the core and the ocean. Specify what "material flows" is.
This something I was unsure myself; what is the best word to define chemical/material exchanges? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
its existence cannot be inferred or ruled out solely from the mass-radius of a planet. Is "mass-radius" a legitimate term or should it be split into "mass and radius"?
Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a liquid ocean is improbable at K2-18b,[30] the water under the envelope is more likely in a supercritical state. Feels better to use a semi-colon or conjunction rather than just a comma.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
has an atmosphere consisting of hydrogen: what percentage of the atmosphere is hydrogen?
From what I can see, we don't know yet. H2-He ratios are seldom of astrobiological interest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the above point, it might also be worth adding the percentage of methane if possible.
We don't know them with any precision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
water clouds, the only species likely to form at K2-18b,[40] is conflicting.[20] Specify that it means cloud species - I did not understand what it meant for some time.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from water ammonium chloride, sodium sulfide, potassium chloride and zinc sulfide can form clouds in the atmosphere of K2-18b, depending on its properties. Add a comma after water and change "its" to "the planet's".
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is not a substantial temperature gradient between poles and equator: add a "the" before poles.
I dunno, it may suggest that it's between both poles, rather than pole-to-equator. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They concluded that the photochemistry should not be able to completely remove ammonia from the outer atmosphere: Create a wikilink from photochemistry or specify what it is.
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
while the water layers might have temperatures and pressures suitable for the development of life. Is this referring to the water layers of the atmosphere? Specify if it is.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
after a reasonable amount of observations. Change "amount" to "number". Also, can it be specified how many observations are needed?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and drew a lot of discussion: From where? By whom? Specify and expand on this.
The sauce unfortunately is not very specific on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other sources you can use? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we aren't at the level of knowledge yet where folks would discuss the significance of a finding in detail, beyond noting that it is significant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a type of planet which combines abundant water with a hydrogen envelope: is combines the best word to use here. Saying "a type of planet that has both abundant liquid water and a hydrogen envelope" might be better.
Yes, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pass the article imminently. Well done! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]