Talk:Planet Nine/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give a full review on Planet Nine towards the end of the week/this week end, but I will state outright that I'm concerned a bit about WP:RECENTISM. Going off a revision I read a while ago (the article may have significantly evolved since), the Mike Brown et al stuff is mostly fine, but it's still very heavily drawing upon the results of one research team, and one single article. They've got plenty of commentary from the astronomical community at least confirming their work is good and convincing, but having independent peer-reviewed sources doing confirmation/follow up on Brown et al's hypothesis will be crucial for a pass/fail on the broadness, neutrality, and stability criteria. Likewise, Mike Brown's personal assessment of likelyhood of existence needs to be balanced by what the astronomical community at large thinks.

I will stress, however, that this preliminary review is based my remembering of what this article was like a week or two after the announcement, and my actual review will be based on the live version. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has stabilized quite a bit in the past few weeks, and I think it is actually really well developed for a hypothetical subject. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Nothing stood out as unclear/poorly worded
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Haven't gone through every MOS subsections out there, but I can find no obvious issue if any.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well sourced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All from reliable sources
	2c. it contains no original research.	Draws heavily on Batygin & Brown, but it's published and endorsed by others. Pass. Alternatives and 'rival' teams also mentioned and given credit.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I feel the lead does not adequately summarize the history of the topic. The hatnote states "This article is about the hypothetical planet first suggested in 2014." yet, there is nothing in the lead about Trujillo and Sheppard, or the state of things prior to discovery. This is fairly well explain in the 'Early speculation' section, but the lead is lacking. The 'exploration' section feels a bit out of place. It's very speculative, and very little can be said about this. Not sure it's enough to warrant a mention, but if it does, I'm not sure a dedicated subsection is best. I wouldn't fail the article because of this though, so if no alternative can be found, don't lose sleep over it.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In the 'Planet Nine hypothesis' section, we have a second table with High-inclination TNOs. This was very WTF as nothing has been said about them so far. In the result sections later, we have an explanation for why those are relevant, but here they are out of order. The 2nd table needs to come later in the article, after the predictions of Batygin & Brown have been stated. Also the 'Results' section needs an introduction paragraph, similar to what is done in the 'best-fit parameters' section. Right now, results are just 'thrown' out there.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Some sentences like "Brown, though conceding the skeptics' point, still thinks that there is enough data to mount a serious search for a new planet, and assures everyone that it will not be a wild goose chase." I find this phrasing a bit unencyclopedic, too 'pro-Brown' (for lack of better word), and the citation does not support such flowery language. I suggest trimming it down to the essential "Brown, though conceding the skeptics' point, still thinks that there is enough data to mount a serious search for a new planet" or similar. Likewise the 'Result' section seems very... argumentative? With its 'furthermore' and the like, it's almost as the article is arguing that Brown is right, rather than simply present the results of Brown in a neutral fashion.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is currently an unresolved debate about the inclusion of the artist's mockup. I personally find those too speculative to be of any encyclopedic value, and press releases just include them to be sexier. Anyone using 'the GA review dislikes them' as an argument against their inclusion should have their !vote disregarded however. My opinion is no more special than anyone's here. But the debate needs to be resolved before this is a pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I am not sure of the value of File:Planet_nine_path_in_orion2.png. Caption say 'one of the path'? So why this one over the others? On what is this path based? Why this section of the orbit? What about error bars on the path?
	7. Overall assessment.	Does not currently clear GA criteria, but this is nothing that isn't fixable. There are also a few cleanup tags in the article, which may be outdated by now.

I've had a go at resolving some of the issues; I believe there are error bars on the predicted path of Planet Nine, but I would want to confirm it with someone else before including them. Serendi ^pod ous 10:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the term "first" proposed in 2014 in Lede can be contentious we should avoid using adjectives like FIRST in this context as it can be inaccurate. we should find a better way to summarize "early speculation" data in the Lede J mareeswaran (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give another review this weekend. I can delay by more if more time is needed to work on the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is the article ready for another review, or do you need more time? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3a, 3b and 5 have been fixed. Not sure about 4, but seems to have been dealt with. Nergaal (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review it again this weekend then (Friday?). Sorry, I missed the notice in my watchlist around April 1 apparently. Right now my main concerns would be making sure the article is up to date with the new publications of Brown (or was that only announced, but not yet published?) since my review, and follow up studies/discoveries. Again this is a provisional comment, and may not reflect the current state of the article, but I thought I'd make it to let people know what I'm going to be looking for, so if there's work that needs to be done in that area, you'll have a few days to make it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The talk page is full of discussions of recent announcements and from what I've seen, whatever sticks does end up in the article. I expect while there is interest in teh subject the article to have a few constant editors making updates. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how things are finally slowing down on the talk page, I'd make a decision on the review end one way or the other at this point. Wizardman 15:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll resume my review soon, but the issue I have with it is mostly every time I take a look at this page for a review, something new comes up, e.g. [1]. It's super hard to judge the 'stability' criterion because things are nowhere near stable, but not because of any editor-based cause. Is there a guideline on how to review GAs for ongoing events? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, I've asked Wizardman to comment, since he's been around GA for a very long time, and might know of such a guideline or other precedent regarding articles where new information could come at any time. So far as I can tell, the "stability" criterion doesn't consider this sort of situation to be an issue, being solely concerned that the article does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. New findings are not a content dispute, but rather new scientific information to be incorporated. It could be years before the data is accumulated that proves or disproves this particular hypothesis, but that doesn't mean a GA-level article can't be written about the current state of research. In this case, it appears to me that a full review of the article as it stands now is in order; this review has been open for over four months, far longer than any other. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the sort of 'well, things could be different in a month', it's that every time I sit down to take a look, a new paper comes out and needs to be incorporated in the article, which usually takes about a week to do well and whoever maintains this article usually does a good job of keeping up with the news. E.g. had this new discovery not come out (and that the implications are legit/sound and make planet nine more unlikely), the article would be up to date and very likely end up with the GA stamp. But now it's not, and needs to be updated (assuming this new discovery and its implications are legit and not just the press having a conniption) to get the GA stamp of approval.

I could always do a review, and sort of give a general "I trust the maintainers will update things with recent findings accordingly over the next few days as they have in the past". However, if Planet Nine received a severe blow to its likelyhood, it might imply a major rewrite is in order. But I'll wait and see if Wizardman has any advice here. I'll ping Serendipodous (talk · contribs) and Nergaal (talk · contribs) to see if they have feedback on the new findings. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: arXiv:1607.03963 just came out. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of GAs and even FAs on stuff that is a developing story. It's been half a year and still no confirmation. If this is rebuked in 10 years doesn't mean it can't be a FA until then. As long as the structure of the article doesn't change much (i.e. subsections are added but within the existing sections) you can consider this article stable. Nergaal (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that things can potentially change, the challenge is that the situation is changing as I review the article. This is actually the third time I try reviewing it in the last few months, but I always give up because whenever I have time, the article is undergoing an editing spree to incorporate the new details. 2015 RR245 potentially considerably changes the game. I'm no celestial dynamics expert, so I can't determine what exactly the effect of this should be on the article, but as of now, the article doesn't address the issue. And I haven't even read arXiv:1607.03963 yet.

I can certainly review what is currently in the article, and then leave the update for the most recent research as an open question to be discussed/resolved towards the end of the review. Or we create a sort of divide between published and preprint papers, and create a later section on 'ongoing research efforts' or similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that just because a new paper appears on Arxiv, that doesn't mean we're going to include it- Arxiv papers are not peer-reviewed and it's really up to the discretion of the authors whether or not to add them. Serendi ^pod ous 10:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review, July[edit]

With apologies for the delay, here is my GA review.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I have found the following 4 issues to be addressed/considered before I can give this a pass. Why c. 102° instead of the more understandable, and already used notation ≈ 102°? This affects a few angle values in the article. In "Simulation" I believe there should be error bars on ω = 150°, or ω ≈ 150°. This affects some infobox values too. Make sure the first instances of values such as 0.1 M_⊕ are wikilinked. "However, because these distant objects are difficult to detect and are often lost,..." I would add something/rephrase this to explain what knowledge exactly is missing/need. E.g. to "these objects" refer to ETNOs/TNOs/KBOs/whatever. Something like "However, because the detection of ETNOs is difficult and limited by current instruments, not enough information is available to distinguish between these possibilities."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There are minor citation tweaks to be made, but I will do them right after this review so this is a pass
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well sourced. However, I would indicate what is sourced to a preprint, to distinguish from peer-reviewed papers. I will do that once I go through the citations.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Nearly all from reliable sources, preprints can be considered reliable here given their authors' track record, how non-contentious their claims are, and how recent they are. I note however, that "Undiscovered mass in addition to Planet Nine" is only supported by one preprint, and it seems fairly old by now which leads me to believe it did not pass peer review / undergoing significant revision (other papers submitted after this one to same journal have been accepted). I'm undecided if that means that this section should be axed, or if additional sources need to be found, but this is a weakly supported section.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Draws heavily on Batygin & Brown, but it's published and endorsed by others. Pass. Alternatives and 'rival' teams also mentioned and given credit. Over the last few months, it's clear that the astronomical community heavily supports this hypothesis by Batygin & Brown.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Up-to-date research is included, although 2015 RR245 which made a hit in the popular press is not mentioned. I've yet to understand the actual/scientific case why 2015 RR245 is at all relevant, so I'm fine with it not being included.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, each section are focused, and the presentation sequence is good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable with respect to editor-based changes. The field is rapidly evolving however, but since that is apparently not an issue at GA, this is a pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The caption in the size comparison is ... well I can't make sense of it. "Planet Nine is hypothesized to be two to four times the diameter of Earth so similar in size to the ice giants Neptune (3.9x) and Uranus (4.0x)..." Is it similar to Neptune/Uranus, or is it 3.9/4.0x Neptune/Uranus, or is Neptune/Uranus radius = 3.9/4.0 x Earth radius?
	7. Overall assessment.	Does not currently clear GA criteria, but once Criteria 1a/2b/6b are addressed, it will. These are fairly trivial hurdles to clear, but they do need to be cleared before getting the stamp. This is even very near FA status, I would argue.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1a.4 the objects are "objects in high-perihelion and moderate-semi-major-axis orbits"
fixed 1a 1 and 3
1a.2 this is the best fit of a simulation. At least in the xarchive document they do not give error bars.
2b 3 months is not that much at least in some fields. i think that is the point of a preprint.
6b somebody seems to have fixed this

Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the latest round of edits, I have no qualms giving the GA thumbs up. I still think the section supported only by the preprint is weak, but this is all in all a minor quibble, but nothing that should prevent the GA from being awarded. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]