This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Proxima Centauri b article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Proxima Centauri b has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
So recently a new study was released regarding the possibility of some of the closest exoplanets supporting life. In a nutshell, they basically say that the radiation that is received by the exoplanets is actually less then what the early Earth was subjected to (about 3.8 Ga), and life was able to originate under these conditions. I think it could be helpful if we incoperate this study into the article but not make it too OR. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 01:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Earlier in May 2019, a user edited the introduction to add the following: "In May 2019, a paper published on the astrophysics preprint-arxiv presenting recent Spitzer Space Telescope observations put doubt on the initial detection, finding no transits, and attributing the initial detection to correlated noise."
The added wording makes it sound as if the study concludes that the entire detection was the result of correlated noise (i.e. that Proxima Centauri b may not exist at all). However, reading the paper referred to, they don't seem to conclude this at all. Rather, they conclude that the planet simply does not transit, and explain reports of transits following the initial detection (which was made using radial velocity measurements) as correlated noise. Nothing in the paper seems to refute the original RV detection at all. As written, the addition to the article here seems grossly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:B600:7310:CD67:365B:B49E:B060 ( talk) 20:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Then what this 2012 Nature article is about? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11572 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.178.156 ( talk) 19:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
So, like with TRAPPIST-1 I've been thinking for a while about trying to bring this article up to FA status.
Now unlike other articles I've brought from stub or redlink to FA this one is already fairly well-developed, so I am going to discuss a few things:
Note that I am purposefully planning to do this before the launch of the James Webb Telescope; I want to split the work so that it's not too much at once. This question is a repost of the one on Talk:TRAPPIST-1 if it matters. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I've written up a proposed rewrite here. Main thing I did is to add page numbers everywhere since the current citation format does not have 'em, and made the article less dependent on newspapers/newsmedia. There is some content in the current article I didn't take over, either because it's unsourced or because the sources seem questionable to me. I'll wait a couple or so of weeks before swapping it in, in case there are objections, since I don't think it's 100% clear that it's better. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, a few weeks ago I installed a major rewrite of this article and there are later edits too. I should have done this GAR earlier, since the article is now completely different from the time at which it passed GAN I think the new version should be checked against the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Femke ( talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
...added in this edit: I originally considered using this source but decided against it because other sources say the same thing and Frontiers Media has a somewhat dodgy reputation. Pinging @ Sir Proxima Centauri:. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is that problematic however, as Frontiers' controversies seem to revolve about somewhat more society-related studies (e.g. HIV, CoViD) than, say, astrophysics (Judging by a quick look into the Wiki page). Some of the authors also appear to have helped somewhat "reputable" studies about other exoplanets (e.g. TOI-1338b and TESS planets), which, at least I personally think, should make the source more of a non-issue. Should I perhaps add, or even replace the source with this one ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01336), that basically concludes the same as you said ? Sir Proxima Centauri ( talk) 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Is Proxima Centauri d confirmed to exist? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Is Proxima Centauri b the best known exoplanet, even compared with the 51 Pegasi one or TRAPPIST-1? As claimed in this source Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Proxima Centauri b article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Proxima Centauri b has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
So recently a new study was released regarding the possibility of some of the closest exoplanets supporting life. In a nutshell, they basically say that the radiation that is received by the exoplanets is actually less then what the early Earth was subjected to (about 3.8 Ga), and life was able to originate under these conditions. I think it could be helpful if we incoperate this study into the article but not make it too OR. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 01:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Earlier in May 2019, a user edited the introduction to add the following: "In May 2019, a paper published on the astrophysics preprint-arxiv presenting recent Spitzer Space Telescope observations put doubt on the initial detection, finding no transits, and attributing the initial detection to correlated noise."
The added wording makes it sound as if the study concludes that the entire detection was the result of correlated noise (i.e. that Proxima Centauri b may not exist at all). However, reading the paper referred to, they don't seem to conclude this at all. Rather, they conclude that the planet simply does not transit, and explain reports of transits following the initial detection (which was made using radial velocity measurements) as correlated noise. Nothing in the paper seems to refute the original RV detection at all. As written, the addition to the article here seems grossly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:B600:7310:CD67:365B:B49E:B060 ( talk) 20:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Then what this 2012 Nature article is about? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11572 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.178.156 ( talk) 19:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
So, like with TRAPPIST-1 I've been thinking for a while about trying to bring this article up to FA status.
Now unlike other articles I've brought from stub or redlink to FA this one is already fairly well-developed, so I am going to discuss a few things:
Note that I am purposefully planning to do this before the launch of the James Webb Telescope; I want to split the work so that it's not too much at once. This question is a repost of the one on Talk:TRAPPIST-1 if it matters. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I've written up a proposed rewrite here. Main thing I did is to add page numbers everywhere since the current citation format does not have 'em, and made the article less dependent on newspapers/newsmedia. There is some content in the current article I didn't take over, either because it's unsourced or because the sources seem questionable to me. I'll wait a couple or so of weeks before swapping it in, in case there are objections, since I don't think it's 100% clear that it's better. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, a few weeks ago I installed a major rewrite of this article and there are later edits too. I should have done this GAR earlier, since the article is now completely different from the time at which it passed GAN I think the new version should be checked against the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Femke ( talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
...added in this edit: I originally considered using this source but decided against it because other sources say the same thing and Frontiers Media has a somewhat dodgy reputation. Pinging @ Sir Proxima Centauri:. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is that problematic however, as Frontiers' controversies seem to revolve about somewhat more society-related studies (e.g. HIV, CoViD) than, say, astrophysics (Judging by a quick look into the Wiki page). Some of the authors also appear to have helped somewhat "reputable" studies about other exoplanets (e.g. TOI-1338b and TESS planets), which, at least I personally think, should make the source more of a non-issue. Should I perhaps add, or even replace the source with this one ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01336), that basically concludes the same as you said ? Sir Proxima Centauri ( talk) 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Is Proxima Centauri d confirmed to exist? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Is Proxima Centauri b the best known exoplanet, even compared with the 51 Pegasi one or TRAPPIST-1? As claimed in this source Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)