The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2022 [1].

TRAPPIST-1[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a star in the constellation of Aquarius (constellation) which is known to have 7 planets orbiting it in a resonance. About 3-4 of these could be warm and cold enough to support liquid water; there has been a lot of research on whether these planets might be habitable and the star system has drawn attention in the popular press and even popular culture. It is an important target for the James Webb Space Telescope. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review no licensing issues found, but File:TRAPPIST-1 system to scale.svg should have a source in the image description for the data presented on the graphic. Also, the first image in the body sandwiches the infobox, which is really long. Would it be possible to collapse parts of the infobox or reduce the amount of info you're trying to get across there? I noticed that parts of the infobox are not cited either inline or in the body. (t · c) buidhe 10:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted a question about the data on commons:User talk:Cmglee. It seems like this is supposed to be the reference of many of the infobox data, but apparently they can't be collapsed so I've commented them out in the interim. I think perhaps they should be put somewhere else (with refs) but I'd like a second opinion on that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Update: The information in that image apparently comes from TRAPPIST-1#Planetary system; added a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

I have no domain knowledge, so here are my comments from a layperson's perspective:

surface temperature of about 2,560 K --> perhaps this too should be expressed in relative terms to the Sun, as in its absolute form it will be meaningless to many
I see, but I am not sure how meaningful "half as hot as the Sun" would be to laypeople. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and thus to have temperatures suitable to the presence of liquid water and thus --> and thus repetition not particularly elegant
Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) --> perhaps an introduction to these odd names could happen a few sentences earlier. Something along the lines of "initially three, then seven terrestrial planets around the star, named TRAPPIST-1b through h.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in fact almost twice as old --> are you sure you need that "in fact"? sounds a bit colloquial to my foreign ears
Yeah, that was superfluous. Cut it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is --> whereas in the lead I liked relative info over absolute, here I think we need both. I'd much prefer to know how many billions of years it has left, as well, how many left for our Solar system. Also include the age of the universe
Added a source and this information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
coronal mass ejections; these are eruptions of coronal material to the outside of a star --> I find that semicolon odd here, but also this explanation surprised me. Up until this point I had to click through to many technical terms I had never heard of (brown dwarf, photosphere, chromosphere, faculae, etc.) and I didn't mind. But "coronal mass ejections" I actually could kind of get directly from its name, and the explanation desn't add much even. I personally would favour seeing inline explanations of uncommon terms. I would not have one for coronal mass ejections.
I actually decided to move this to a footnote for consistency reasons. I don't think we can explain all these terms inline without severely breaking the flow of the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that would break the flow. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TRAPPIST-1b, TRAPPIST-1c, TRAPPIST-1d, TRAPPIST-1e, TRAPPIST-1f, TRAPPIST-1g, and TRAPPIST-1h --> bit more readable and still clear would be TRAPPIST-1b, 1c, ...
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
taking a few to about 20 days --> why a few and not something like "with orbits taking between 1.5 and 20 days"?
Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
distances of 1.7×106–8.9×106 kilometres (1.1×106–5.5×106 mi) --> that's a lot of symbols munched together. Perhaps better to split it up and say something like "ranging from x to y"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
much closer to TRAPPIST-1 than Mercury --> perhaps for extra clarity something like "all of them much closer to TRAPPIST-1 than Mercury "
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are named in alphabetic order --> I would expect this to come a bit earlier, right after their names
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
exterior to planet h and is part of the planetary resonance --> link planetary resonance
Done and moved footnote up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
coplanar --> link or explanation
There is a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would a link to Coplanarity be ok? Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
caption Orbital comparison. should not have a full stop b/c it's a fragment, not a sentence. The next caption is a sentence, and should have a full stop. Check the others
I have to confess that I am not entirely certain when a stop is needed or not, can you double check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
similar to similar ratios --> duplication
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2 between each planet pair --> perhaps "neighboring planet pair"?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The resonances and the proximity to their host star has led --> have led?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
making the matter of tidal locking more complicated and potentially more habitable --> not sure if this flows well, it now reads that tidal locking gets more habitable
OK, no idea how that sentence was written. Rewrote it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets --> the previous elements in this semicolon separated list had a verb, why not this one?
I think "cause" is a verb here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not make that very clear, so trying again: the "likewise it would influence .." but has a subject and verb, but the next bit "cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets;" does not have a subject on its own, and likewise the last bit "or induce volcanism which replenishes atmospheres" does not have a subject or verb. I would think that all semicolon separated fragments have the same structure. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
,[122] or induce volcanism which replenishes atmospheres --> should that comma not be a semicolon?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cannot --> can not per MOS:CONTRACTIONS
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
compared to a Sun-like irradiation --> link irradiation
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three or four[42] planets – e, f, and g[132] or d, e, and f --> why use bold?
To highlight the letters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see quite which part of MOS:BOLD would allow for that. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to ((em)) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
glaciation --> link
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other factors are --> for what?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
kinetics, energetics --> link
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soon more. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic and radiative effects of TRAPPIST-1 --> would be good to use the unfamiliar term radiative in this section, and link it
Done. I do have one structural issue here, though - there is a discussion on mantle melting here despite the section itself saying that tidal heating is much more important. I wonder if there'd be a way to put all the mantle melting in one section without creating too many short paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the higher wavelength --> 2 paragraphs in a row starting with because of
Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Water-dominated atmospheres --> why is water linked?
Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oxygen-dominated atmospheres can form --> I expected each bullet point to have some statement about the planets' atmospheres, whether likely or not. And ideally each bullet point starts with such a statement, and then additonial context. Like the first bullet point
There isn't the same information available for every atmosphere, so that wouldn't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the exoplanet and the visibility of its atmosphere scale with the inverse square of the radius of its host star --> not sure I get this: what property of the exoplanet scales? or do you mean the visibility of the planet? And would it be better to use "an" instead of "the"?
Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- in particular carbon dioxide, ozone and water --> (in particular carbon dioxide, ozone and water)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in fact, TRAPPIST-1 emits amounts --> do we need that In fact?
Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TRAPPIST-1 is moderately[23] to highly active --> in what way?
That's the bulleted list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Samara, Patsourakos and Georgoulis 2021 --> previously it was X et al. Consistency would be better
The pattern is that 1-3 names get spelled out and 4+ get an et al. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stellar wind-driven escape in the Solar System --> are those 2 capital S's really right?
I think yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
common volatiles such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and water --> most of these were alreeady linked
overall, so many terms are linked multiple times, really check the whole article for this. See MOS:REPEATLINK
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the Highlight duplicate links under Tools in the left hand navigation, you can see which ones are still left to repair. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got the rest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
50% water by mass,[247] because of this --> this doesn't flow very well
Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
favour the evolution of --> inconsistent with "could harbor": BrE or AmE?
BrE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
mix oceans and supply and redistribute nutrients[255] and stimulate --> a few more commas needed
Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
carbon monoxide that are toxic to higher life --> I'm surprised by this fact. Higher life as we know it on Earth, sure, but any life?
The source certainly thinks so, IMO incorrectly for the reason you say but we need to work with what sources claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the identification of close by ultra-cold --> I would add a hyphen between close and by
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
drawing widespread attention in social media, streaming TV and websites[ba][280] and it received widespread --> duplication of widespread, and would it not be more logical to start with newspapers? I assume they covered it first and then the public reacted
Done, but I wouldn't assume that order of events - newspapers take longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Isolation's single --> should In Isolation not be redlinked? or do you think it is not notable?
same with Leah Asher?
I don't know any of these people/groups, the fact that they mentioned TRAPPIST-1 is documented by third-party sources but the people/groups themselves probably aren't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
by the High Energy Stereoscopic System --> I assume by the people running the system, not some AI
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in Namibia --> countries usually not linked
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Owing to its relative closeness to the Solar System, the small size of the star TRAPPIST-1 and the fact that, from Earth's perspective, the planets frequently pass in front of the star, the TRAPPIST-1 planets --> I don't think this is correct: you have "its" but the subject of the main clause is plural. The whole thing is not particularly elegant, maybe consider a rewrite
Changed to plural but I don't see how to rewrite this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something along the lines of "The TRAPPIST-1 planets are the most easily studied habitable planets outside of the Solar System, owing to their relative closeness, the small size of their host star, and the fact that, from Earth's perspective, they frequently pass in front of their host."
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Future observations with observatories and ground-based facilities may allow future --> future duplication and are observatories not ground-based? And would you not get better observations from space telescopes? Ah, ok you mention that after the semicolon. Perhaps better to rephrase to avoid this at first reading
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Together with the discovery of Proxima Centauri b, the discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets and the fact that about three of TRAPPIST-1's planets are within its habitable zone has led to an upswing of studies on planetary habitability[299] and are considered prototypical for the research on the habitability of M dwarfs. --> perhaps a few commas to help the reader parse this?
I don't think that's easy to do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the subject of the clause "are considered ..."? I'm not a native speaker so if you think this is grammatically correct then I trust you. It just doesn't look ok to my foreign eyes. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, neither am I. I've done a small change there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TRAPPIST-1 has drawn intense scientific interest,[177] and the star has been subject of detailed studies, including studies assessing the habitability of each planet,[98] including the possible effects of vegetation and whether an ocean could be detected by using starlight reflected off its surface. --> twice includng, and the beginning is a bit odd since that was already clear from the preceding bit. And mentioning habitability feels repetitive, given the previous sentence
I've cut the habitability bit, but the preceding sentence is more general than TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that "TRAPPIST-1 has drawn intense scientific interest" could be a good opening for the whole Scientific importance section. Where it is now is a bit jarring for me since by then this statement was already obvious to me from all the previous sentences. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good suggestion; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spacecraft mission designs using present-day rockets and gravity slingshots would need hundreds of thousands of years to reach TRAPPIST-1. --> unsourced and would it not be better placed right after "by humans with current or expected technology"?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit jarring for me: it goes from current and expected tech to theoretical and then back to current. I'd do the present-day before the theoretical. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reordered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there is an unusual number of bullet point lists, but I think it is fine as I guess it falls under the exception of MOS:PARA
Yeah, many of these things work better as lists than as paragraph(s). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the footnotes later. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes a b and i need sourcing
Sourced the first, the second is two mathematical formulae (gravity and logarithms) and the third is also an unit conversion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tidal heating is heating induced by tides, which deform planets and heat it in the process --> should that "it" not be "them"?
Yes and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
e.g carbon dioxide, is trapped within a "cage"-like assembly of molecules from another compound, e.g --> it's e.g. (twice)
Deduplicated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say that e.g is misspelled twice: it is with a . after the g: e.g.
Ah; did that fix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10×10³³ ergs (1.0×10²⁷ J) --> should that not be written as 1×10³⁴ ergs (1.0×10²⁷ J)?
Yes, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
58495 times that of Earth --> 58,495 times that of Earth
tidal stress 22735 times that of Earth --> tidal stress 22,735 times that of Earth
I am concerned that using the comma separators might make people think we are talking about decimals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DIGITS gives 2 options, commas or spaces. But it has to be consistent. In the 1st section you have commas: 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discovery was sometimes the top news. --> a bit of an odd wording
Recast this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which however may not have time to reliably detect certain biosignatures. --> I'm not a fan of these kind of half-sentences. But I can't see anything in MOS that suggests it is frowned upon.
The MOS isn't the one and only writing rule. I think a question here would rather be how to write the sentence otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: frankly the writing doesn't seem up to the high quality FA standard. I started looking at how to massage the article, but gave up because it needs plenty of TLC. It's a B+ article with good referencing. Praemonitus (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of TLC? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe[edit]

I'm happy to check this over with a view to improving prose and making sure it's understandable to a wide audience. Has Edwininlondon ended his review? (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm done, go ahead. I'm sure you can improve the prose a lot. Your work on Corry Tendeloo was much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"have precise numerical ratios of 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2." —in which order?
Outward, but the source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"is predicted to lead to intense planet-planet interactions that could drive volcanic activity on the planets" needs to be clearer as to whether this volcanic activity is occuring in the present or future. If the former, "probably causes" is probably better
Former, so changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of hedging "likely", "predicted", "could have", "hypothesized" etc. May be unavoidable but I'd see whether it's possible to rephrase some of these to be more specific about the likelihood
Yeah, that's pretty much unavoidable until we get more precise data. I don't think that most of these theories have had their probability given. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not spell out trappist in the lead since you don't spell it out in the body text
That was deliberate, so that folks know why the acronym. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"0.0898 times" more understandable if expressed in percentage
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source comparing the mass to Jupiter? If not, axe the footnote. If so, incorporate into the text rather than writing that red dwarves are dense (dense compared to what?)
Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"rotation period of active regions" is there a link for this
Not as far as I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how useful it is to have footnotes defining terms that are basically the same thing you get from hovering over the link. I'm not super comfortable citing sources that aren't about TRAPPIST-1 and it seems to add considerable bloat to the article.

I am hearing you, but in other content reviews at FAC and elsewhere I've been told that links do not fully substitute for footnotes. Besides, relying on links wouldn't actually resolve the sourcing question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"similar to the ratios of the Solar System and of the moons that orbit its giant planets" -> I don't understand
This is a sentence I struggled to formulate - the planet/star mass ratio resembles that of the Solar System and to the moon/planet mass ratio of Solar System gas giants. I've put that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"which would have important implications for the climate of the planets" vague
Yeah, it's a bit hard to summarize the effects in a few sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The distribution of the fragments would control the Earth-like mass the planets ended up having" I don't get it
Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Ohmic heating[f] of the atmosphere of TRAPPIST-1e, f, and g amounts to 5-15 times the extreme ultraviolet radiation" as what?
Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"it may be losing hydrogen at a rate of 1.4×10⁷ g/s" — removed, if this is important needs to say where this number comes from
Hmm? There was a source besides it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this based on some projection or what? (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was based on Lyman-alpha transit data from the Hubble Space Telescope. Would "based on Hubble Space Telescope observations" be clear enough? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a lot of edits to the article, feel free to rv if unhelpful (t · c) buidhe 08:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded a couple of footnotes per my comments above. The one about Kepler-90 is mainly b/c numerous sources say that TRAPPIST-1 is the star with the most planets, and I think that TRAPPIST-1e needs special mention as it's the planet most commonly discussed in terms of habitability. The misattribution to NASA is specifically discussed by the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can support or oppose the article, but I hope I did improve it somewhat. (t · c) buidhe 12:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ComplexRational[edit]

I'll give this a look, seeing as there hasn't been much activity here in several weeks and I've done a bit of reading about this rather fascinating system recently. Here are some initial observations on a first read-through – more to gradually trickle in.

The English variety is not 100% clear: for instance, favourable (en-GB) and visualized (en-US) are both present, though groups of spellings seem internally consistent.
- Oxford spelling? (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking that could be it. In that case, could it be codified on the talk page? ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do try to stick to en-GB in my writing but sometimes the fact that English is my second language strikes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of short paragraphs; if possible, expanding or combining them may be better stylistically.
Did it for two paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Et al. should not be italicized.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a number of minor copyedits to the article (mainly grammar, formatting, and other MOS stuff). I'll probably do a full top-to-bottom overhaul; there are a couple of small things I can fix without noting here.
The edits so far seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The references should have consistently-formatted dates – I see a mix of year, month-year, and month-day-year, along with dates such as "2014b". Since most of these are journal articles that may not have an exact publication date, I think best practice is to only give the year.
Likewise, either write out first names consistently or use only first initials consistently. Again, I believe the latter is easier to implement.
Hmm, I need to ask if availability of information gives allowances here for the slightly inconsistent format as not all citations have the same information available and it would be a lot of work to cut the names and dates. "2014b" is because there are two sources with the same sfn name; I believe this is the accepted way to disambiguate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked several style guides, and indeed this is the way to disambiguate in APA. However, they also indicate that all sources should have an alphabetical index, so in this case "2014a" and "2014b" instead of "2014" and "2014b". ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A source review should be done (I'd be willing to take it on), though the sources look solid and reliable at first glance.
Defining technical terms, as done here, is great for fostering understanding among non-experts. I wonder if any can be worked into the text to have more complete paragraphs and fewer footnotes. (I see that it's already done with Alfvén surface, for example.)
Aye, that one was easier to fit into the sentence flow than others. I am a bit wary that integrating the other footnotes can't be done without constantly jolting the reader away from the flow of the text towards a definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I'll go through each of the footnotes individually and highlight if and where I feel this can be done. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, some of the non-definition footnotes could be integrated into the main text, also addressing my point above on short paragraphs. As an example, note [u] explains in greater detail why exomoons are unlikely, while the paragraph containing this note is one (long) sentence spanning two lines. Merging this note would flesh out the content and prevent a section from awkwardly containing a solitary sentence.
OK, this specific example (and the one about Bourrier et al 2017 below) is a bit tougher since the footnoted information has a bit less WP:WEIGHT than the rest of the paragraph, but not so much less to justify a complete omission. Thus I have a slight concern that putting it into the paragraph or cutting it completely would give it undue weight/too little weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Bourrier note is good as is. I can see your argument, though will also note that the paragraph is short and a run-on sentence and can viably be expanded (split and elaborate?) from available sources. If some of the other studies that cast doubt on the presence of moons are discussed in greater detail, I'd think undue weight would no longer be a problem. ComplexRational (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article seemingly fails to mention that the discovery of the planetary system was announced in 2017. It's hinted at in the lead, but since this is the date widely reported in the media, it should be mentioned.
Problem is that the planet system was first reported in 2016 not 2017. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is some confusion here, even among publications. Indeed, the presence of exoplanets in the TRAPPIST-1 system was first reported in 2016, while in 2017 the number of confirmed planets rose from 3 to 7 and the system was announced by NASA (even though, as the article correctly states, they were not the discoverers). This seems to offer some clarity. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here is that often discoveries are announced the year after they were actually made (e.g the planets were first sighted in 2015 but identified as such only in 2016). I am not sure that the exoplanetarchive is strictly correct - Gillon et al. 2017 claims that the initial "TRAPPIST-1d" signal was actually a combination of the other planets, not the actual TRAPPIST-1d. I've expanded in the lead section to make this clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if briefly, I feel something should be said about N-body simulations of the system. This is a fundamental aspect of research into the system's long-term stability.
Expanded on this sentence a bit. Do you want more? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now, in that I don't see a glaring omission. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like other dwarf stars, TRAPPIST-1 is dense. – how dense is "dense"? Especially considering the following statement, TRAPPIST-1 has an unusually low density for its kind of star, this bit of prose feels almost self-contradictory as written. I'd recommend combining these to precisely quantify the star's density and compare it (as "unusually low") to the average for M dwarfs.
Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
while the Solar System will cease to exist in a few billion years – the Solar System will almost certainly still exist in a few billion years; this should be reworded to more accurately reflect the later evolution and death of the Sun.
Rewrote that. Do you want a more complete description of the fate of the Sun? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better now. I'd still expand it slightly to read while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen) in a few billion years and move up the footnote defining main sequence. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three or four[40] planets – e, f, and g[128] or d, e, and f – does the source group all four (d, e, f, and g) as potentially habitable, or does the four result from overlapping sets of three?
The latter, different sources have different ideas of what is habitable and what is not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
although the names of the planets will be decided by the International Astronomical Union – this statement dates to 2017; have there been any updates?
Not yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and with the cavity in the pre-planet disk – should pre-planet disk read protoplanetary disk? The former term is rarely used in the literature (and is not used in the source cited). ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should link to it, certainly. I've stuck with "pre-planetary" since it's a touch less technical than "proto-planetary" and a synonym, but you or anyone else can change it to proto if they see it as better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Seven weeks in, no supports, and a lot of basic copy editing which would have been better done off-FAC and which suggests that the article wasn't ready for FAC when it was nominated. Unless there are clear signs of a consensus to promote starting to form within 48 hours I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I hope not. I haven't had much luck on getting additional comments on this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary, I'd be happy to continue my comments at a peer review. ComplexRational (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry [User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]], but I am timing this out. The usual two week hiatus in nominating will apply. It may be useful to run the article through GoCER and/or PR before you bring it back.

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.