Good articleKepler-11g 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.
Good topic starKepler-11g is part of the Kepler-11 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2011Good article nomineeListed
May 31, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 7, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the mass of the extrasolar planet Kepler-11g could not be determined because its orbit is too far from those of its sister planets?
Current status: Good article

GA1[edit]

Promoted

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-11g/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Wikilinked both. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done However, I did not include the "planet-like objects" portion because the nature of the transit, which could be a fluctuation in the star's behavior or perhaps something like a white dwarf, is not confirmed until future study. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The reported likelihood of Kepler-11g not being a planet is less than 1% and has been added to the article. Nstock (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun's effective temperature is 5778 K, which places it at the upper end of the confidence interval. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove the cooler part since it is confusing/misleading. 100 K out of 5000 is nothing. Nergaal (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the best estimate for temperature, Kepler-11 is slightly cooler. Saying 100K out of 5000 is nothing is a subjective statement (even a difference in temperature as small as this has consequences for things such as the ice line and habitable zone). I have reworded the sentence slightly, hopefully making it is less confusing Nstock (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I don't understand what you are asking here. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition within the same paragraph. Nergaal (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nstock (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its density is not known because its mass cannot be effectively established by current means. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Min mass, check. radius, check. => min density, should be check. Nergaal (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an inaccuracy here: 300 Earth masses is the upper limit, not the lower one. The article has been corrected and the discussion expanded to explain how it's gotten. With regards to the density, the authors of the discovery paper never comment on the density. The upper limit of density based on the maximum mass is 35 g/cm^3... so we can rule out the planet being made of degenerate matter or the heaviest radioactive elements on the periodic table. Nstock (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try adding a footnote. Are there other planets with this sort of upper limit densities? Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this upper limit density is based on my own calculation, wouldn't including it be borderline original research? But it's also a fairly absurd upper limit: there is no precedent for a planet being anywhere near this dense. Nothing is learned by stating it. 35 g/cm^3 is much denser than iron (7.9), lead (11.3) or pure gold (19.3). Literally, there is no reasonable way of making a planet that even approaches this limit, which is why I suspect the discoverers deliberately exclude an estimate of the density for Kepler-11g, but have densities for the other 5 planets (see Table 1 of the Lissauer paper). Nstock (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2011 (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.

Equilibrium Temperature?[edit]

This chart is copied straight out of the article for Gliese 581 g.
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to make it a standard chart for all extra-solar planets that are compared to Earth?
With the relevent values swapped in of course.
24.79.40.48 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature
comparisons 		Venus Earth Gliese 581 g Mars
Global
equilibrium
temperature		 307 K
34 °C
93 °F		 255 K
−18 °C
−0.4 °F		 209 K to 228 K
−64 °C to −45 °C
−83 °F to −49 °F		 206 K
−67 °C
−88.6 °F
+ Venus'
GHG effect		 737 K
464 °C
867 °F
+ Earth's
GHG effect		 288 K
15 °C
59 °F		 236 K to 261 K
−37 °C to −12 °C
−35 °F to 10 °F
+ Mars'
GHG effect		 210 K
−63 °C
−81 °F
Tidally
locked		 Almost No Probably No
Global
Bond Albedo		 0.9 0.29 0.5 to 0.3 0.25
Refs.[1][2][3] [4][5]
Possibly. I'd definitely find it useful in visualizing the planets more accurately. I'll request more input by notifying WikiProject Astronomy, see if this can get any extra opinions. --Starstriker7(Talk) 19:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, many exo-planets are Super-Jupiter or Neptune sized, comparing those to Jupiter or Neptune would be better. Large Super-Jupiters should be compared to the smallest theoretical brown dwarf and Jupiter, smaller ones ( <5MJ ) can drop the brown dwarf comparison. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I mentioned, with relevent values swapped in. I know for example Jupiter has a suface temperature, core temperature, and equilibrium temperature. I don't see the problem with swapping the gas giant values in. I think the main point would be the comparison of equilibrium temperatures, which is mainly influenced by distance. The irradiance of each planet would be good also but no one does a comparison of those, the equilibrium temperature is the closest thing. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the broad idea: it would definitely make it much easier to visualize extrasolar planets. That being said, some details would need to be worked out, over time, as to what comparison planets are listed and what planetary statistics are most useful for comparision. N2e (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Vogt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Stephens was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "NASA, Mars: Facts & Figures". Retrieved 2010-01-28.
  4. ^ Mallama, A.; Wang, D.; Howard, R.A. (2006). "Venus phase function and forward scattering from H2SO4". Icarus. 182 (1): 10–22. Bibcode:2006Icar..182...10M. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.12.014.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Mallama, A. (2007). "The magnitude and albedo of Mars". Icarus. 192 (2): 404–416. Bibcode:2007Icar..192..404M. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.011.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-11g. 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:

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories