Talk:New planet found in 'Habitable Zone'

Review of revision 1105330 [Passed]

Revision 1105330 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Needed a bit of copyediting for POV, but otherwise okay. 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 1105330 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Needed a bit of copyediting for POV, but otherwise okay. 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.

Apt

"The planet, aptly named ' Gliese 581 g'"

Why is the name apt? I do not understand.

(I did ask before, on one of the other versions of the page, but that comment seems to have gone astray) Chzz (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem apt to me either, (just appropriate, or systematic.) Let's just delete the word.
• You asked the question at Talk:Newly discovered extra-solar planet may be Earth-like, which coincidentally also used the word "aptly" :)

--InfantGorilla (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's 'g' apparently for 'goldilocks zone', which is particularly inapt for the mythology, and the fact it's the 6th planet known around Gliese 581, being tagged with the 7th letter of the modern English version of the Latin alphabet. - Amgine | ^t 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

The following is from the wikipedia article:
♦Discovery date September 29, 2010

♦In December 2010, a methodological error has been revealed in the data analysis that lead to the "discovery" of Gliese 581 f and g.[13] The team around Steven Vogt inferred the number of exoplanets by using a reduced chi-square, although the orbital models are nonlinear in the model parameters. Therefore, reduced chi-square is not a trustworthy diagnostic. In fact, an investigation of the fit residuals showed that the data used by Vogt's team actually prefers a model with four planets, not six, in agreement with the results of Francesco Pepe's team.

Further analyses of HIRES/HARPS dataAnother re-analysis found no clear evidence for a fifth planetary signal in the combined HIRES/HARPS data set.[14] The claim was made that the HARPS data only provided some evidence for 5 planet signals, while incorporation of both data sets actually degraded the evidence for more than four planets (i.e., none for 581 f or 581 g).
"I have studied [the paper] in detail and do not agree with his conclusions,"[15] Steven Vogt said in reply, concerned that Gregory has considered the HIRES data as more uncertain.[16] The question of Gliese 581g's existence won't be settled definitively until researchers gather more high-precision radial velocity data, Vogt said.

♥ This one sided article is sensationalizing a falsehood. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an archived news article. It is a snapshot of what was known at the time it was published. --Pi zero (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)