Talk:K2-18b

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the K2-18b article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

K2-18b 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 5, 2023	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 29, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 13, 2019.

Current status: Good article

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Google Scholar

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Why is the Radius Valley mentioned

The paragraph mentioning the Radius Valley in the Physical Properties section is going to lead to confusion. At 2.6 Earth radii, K2-18 b falls significantly outside of it. It would be easy to mistakenly come away from reading that paragraph with the impression that this planet's radius is inside of the Radius Valley because otherwise why would it be included? The Radius Valley is not relevant to this article. 65.175.252.60 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works as an explanation of the Super-Earth/Sub-Neptune distinction, but maybe it could be moved to a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New addition

Are we sure that "However, on May 20th 2024, The Astrophysical Journal published a reevaluation of the initial readings which indicate that no biosignatures were ever detected on K2-18b" is interpreting the source correctly? At first glance, it seems to do but syfy references the original paper and it doesn't seem to say such a thing at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: to answer your question honestly, no I am not sure - however, this is why I think it is important to frame the sentences as "these are what the scientists are claiming" instead of putting it as a straight fact. you know what I mean?--Osh33m (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the original paper does not literally say "no biosignatures were detected at all" then perhaps the source really is just clickbaiting and dismissing the initial findings. --Osh33m (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Osh33m: Here's a publically accessible version of the paper. Also pinging @AstroChara and Xiphosura: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interpreting the listed source correctly, but SYFY itself seems to have misinterpreted the paper. It isn't even a re-evaluation of the data, it is an attempt to model an atmosphere like K2-18b's to see at what point the DMS becomes clearly detectable, and suggests other signatures to check for. Nothing is explicitly ruled out, it just puts that detection boundary at 20x Earth's biogenic sulfur flux and even goes so far as to say this is "within the plausible range of surface biomass density." I'll rewrite that section and cite the paper directly.

Honestly more concerning to me though is the prior claim of "50% chance of finding life". While it's certainly a legitimate quote from a qualified professional, I fear it will be taken far too seriously as a prediction. That's the sort of wild claim people tend to run with all too eagerly should they find it in WP articles. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 05:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote your addition a bit, as it was mentioning some IMO unnecessary details or things that fit better in other sections. I wouldn't be averse to removing that claim. That section has a bit of a problem with becoming a list of every attention-getting mention of K2-18b in the media, regardless of WP:Due weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the suggestion to remove the interview passage. AstroChara (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we leave some excerpt from the interview? It seems counterproductive to remove any trace of there being that interview entirely given the fact that it exists and offers insight to the ongoing research. --Osh33m (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have third-party heavy-weight sources discussed that interview? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that they have, but when the discussion here came about removing the interview, it was never about the fact that third party sources weren't added, only about the veracious insinuation of the claim in the interview itself. --Osh33m (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the WP:Undue concern is invalid. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your inaccurate edits of this article border on vandalism and yet you still hang around here as if your opinion has any weight. 65.175.252.60 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

last paragraph

needs to updated. talks about January 2024 in the future. 109.253.174.70 (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done: "is"→"was"; do you have any updated citations for what has happened since? Peaceray (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]