Talk:Discovery of smallest exoplanet yields 'extraordinary' find
 |
Revision 808147 of this article has been reviewed by Computerjoe (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: A good article. Whilst it isn't problematic as the sources are reliable, a few more would surely be great? Not that it's a problem as the sources are reliable! --Computerjoe (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 808147 of this article has been reviewed by Computerjoe (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: A good article. Whilst it isn't problematic as the sources are reliable, a few more would surely be great? Not that it's a problem as the sources are reliable! --Computerjoe (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
making it the smallest exoplanet discovered to date edit
This is wrong, the third exoplanet ever discovered is smaller than this planet. w:PSR B1257+12 A 76.66.196.218 06:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Checking the page you reference, and that of the newly discovered planet, it seems some sort of qualifier as to the type of sun the planet orbits would fix this (the one you point to orbits a pulsar). Any suggestions? I'm loathe to use "normal star", would "orbiting a star similar to our own" fix it? --Brian McNeil / talk 07:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is it doesn't orbit a sun-like star, it orbits a red-dwarf, which isn't very sun like at all. I suppose you could say orbiting a non-pulsar star? As pulsars are dead stars, I suppose you could say "living star" or "live star". 76.66.196.218 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I went with the "living star" change" - won't mean much to a lot of people, but more technically correct. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is it doesn't orbit a sun-like star, it orbits a red-dwarf, which isn't very sun like at all. I suppose you could say orbiting a non-pulsar star? As pulsars are dead stars, I suppose you could say "living star" or "live star". 76.66.196.218 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)