Talk:Gliese 581 planetary system

Gliese 581 planetary system was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 8, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This redirect is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.

This article was nominated for merging with Gliese 581 on 23 September 2020. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Merge.

Article organisation

I came across this while patrolling new articles and I'm uncertain whether to click OK. Certainly the subject is notable enough for an article, but it is fairly comprehensively covered already in what are now the child articles to this one. Is the intention now to merge the individual planets into this article? I see that there has been some discussion in a similar direction already with no changes made. Or is there sufficient need for a summary as well as keeping the individual articles? Lithopsian (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gliese 581 planetary system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521052641/http://obswww.unige.ch/~udry/Gl581_preprint.pdf to http://obswww.unige.ch/~udry/Gl581_preprint.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gliese 581 planetary system/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rontombontom (talk · contribs) 15:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article thoroughly and checked some of the references (not all). In general, the article uses good English, is thoroughly sourced, covers all that is to be known about the subject, stable and illustrated. I corrected some minor issues myself. However, I think the article needs substantial work on several details to fulfil the first four GA criteria (see list below). Since the nominator (and apparent main editor) of the article has been inactive since October and no other editor touched the article since then, I don't see a realistic chance for the criticism to be addressed any time soon. For that reason, I will fail the GA nomination unless someone objects in the next 24 hours. Of course, another go at a GAN may be launched after improvements to the article.

Infobox:

Giving a range for "known planets" is confusing, I suggest to add "confirmed"/"unconfirmed" (possibly with HTML line break).

Intro:

Due to the controversy, the intro should be sourced, too.
The formulation "false detections" seems too strong if the dispute is on-going, and too unspecific to indicate the nature of the dispute.
Since the intro is a summary, the unconfirmed planets deserve specific mention, too.

Observation history:

This now starts with the first planet discoveries. What's missing is the discovery of the star.
Considering that under the Planets section, the features of each planet are discussed, in this section, there is too much detail on them. It would be enough to give the discovery circumstances and indicate the significance of each planet, and move the rest (if not dublicate) to the planet's section.
The Vogt quote at the end of the third paragraph seems to be rhetoric in its entirety, I would cut it entirely. The same subject comes up again in the before-last sentence of the Gliese 581g section, then paraphrased, which is even worse because there it has the appearance of a scientific argument.
The article uses the symbol "AU" without introducing it in the unabbreviated form (that is, "astronomical unit (AU)"). Later, the same is true about symbols for Earth mass and Earth radius.

Gliese 581:

Since the accompanying image shows the star's relative size to the Sun, the text should mention it, too.

Planets:

The first paragraph is unsourced.

Confirmed planets, Unconfirmed planets:

For readability, a short intro text should separate section and sub-section headers.

Gliese 581g:

The last sentence about "a second Age of Discovery" seems pure rhetoric, I would cut it.

Gliese 581d:

Is it disputed or "once considered disputed"? At any rate, the source for the "reanalysis" is in fact a critique of the statistical method used by those disputing the discovery, which ony recommends a re-analysis of data without doing it.

References:

With just a cursory check, I found two dead links, with access dates from 2010 (updated them myself). All links should be checked.
Given the controversy surrounding some of the subjects, I think it is essential to give a date for all sources.
As per the MOS, all dates in the article body and the reference dates should be in the same format, only the access dates can be in ISO format (yyyy-mm-dd).

So that concludes my review. Rontombontom (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inactive now; however, I'll try to take care of the issues. —MartinZ (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I'll keep the GAN open for now. Please indicate here when you feel you're done. (Then I will re-read the article and do what I haven't yet done: check every reference.) Rontombontom (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MartinZ, it seems you didn't have enough free time to complete the edits my review called for. I fully appreciate if real life got in the way, but I think I have waited long enough, so I'm failing the GAN for now. Again, you're welcome to re-nominate the article once you have time again for editing. Rontombontom (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gliese 581?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the star Gliese 581 is too short to be a total, full-fledged page. While most of the things that are interesting about the star are the planetary system, they should nonetheless be shown in the actual article instead of being a redirect from the full page. TheWhistleGag (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support this merge; no other exoplanetary system has separate articles on the system and the star. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else have opinions on this issue? TheWhistleGag (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the primary article is of modest length and the subjects are closely interrelated. If Proxima Centauri, Epsilon Eridani, and Tau Ceti are combined articles, there's no reason this should be any different. Praemonitus (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Same reason as above. Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.