# Talk:Kepler-11b

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-11b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

please find an image for relative planet sizes for the system. something along the lines of this
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
"Kepler-11b, along with its five counterparts, form the first discovered planetary system with over three planets; the most densely packed known planetary system; and the flattest known planetary system." needs citation
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"As Kepler-11b was announced simultaneously with other planets, Kepler-11b was given the designation b because it was the innermost of the six announced planets." move at the end of the paragraph for a better flow
Comment It would split up the explanation of the planet's naming. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I moved the preceding info about Kepler to after this sentence to improve flow. Nstock (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
" form the first discovered planetary system with over three planets" WRONG! The ref says "ew stars are known to have more than one transiting planet, and Kepler-11 is the first known star to have more than three" which means it is the first star with three TRANSITING planets. Just take a look at List of planetary systems and you will see that it is the second with 6 total planets.
 Done by Starstriker7 --Nstock (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
please fix " It is part of the first system discovered with more than three planets," also
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"Metallicity plays an important role in determining if a planet can exist, and if so, what kind of planet will exist in a star's system" please expand a bit (higher metallicity higher chance for higher density planet?
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
"Kepler-11b is a rocky planet of 4.3 Earth masses and 1.97 Earth radii," is misleading. The radius has an error of 10% and the mass has 50%. [1]
 Done Nstock (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"Its light density suggests that it is not of Earth-like composition.[" how does it compare to Uranus and Neptune? or hot jupiters?
Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done compared to solar system bodies. Nstock (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - bah, Nergaal beat me to it :). Anyway some additional comments.

"Kepler-11b is approximately 5% less massive and 10% wider than the Sun." ==> assuming, you mean Kepler-11 here, the star itself?
 Done Nstock (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"the most densely packed known planetary system; and the flattest known planetary system" ==> the main article Kepler-11 states "it is one of the flattest..." not the flattest known. Which one is correct (please correct other one)?
 Done It has been dealt with. The Kepler-11b note is the correct one. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Ref. 2 "Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia" has an author Jean Schneider listed in the website. ==> should be added.
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
link to Denice Chow ==> i'd suggest to put this in a formal "External links" section.
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kepler 11 is listed in source 2 as KIC 6541920 as alternate designation ==> worth adding somewhere?
Comment The alternative designations for Kepler 11 are listed on the Kepler 11 page. Kepler-11b has no KIC designation (although it does have a KOI designation) Nstock (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
GermanJoe (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done - fixed some minor MOS stuff, but will refrain from any substantial edits during GA. GermanJoe (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Article looks good so I'll pass it. Nergaal (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether it is actually useful to create separate articles for each planet in a system like Kepler-11 at this stage in the game. When all we have for each planet are orbital elements and a radius, plus a rough estimate of the mass, all the information on the system can easily be presented in one relatively short article. What is the point of creating redundant articles on each planet which simply repeat the data on the parent star and the discovery of the system and its characteristics? One can pad an article on an individual planet by comparing its parameters with planets in our solar system, but this doesn't add a lot of value. My view is that if and when astronomers start publishing articles on the possible properties, history, habitability, etc. of the individual planets in the system then having separate articles makes sense if the research is going to be discussed at some length. However, prior to that time there is no reason to have separate articles on each planet. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kepler-11b. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204134830/http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/01/5972312-planetary-six-pack-poses-a-puzzle to http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/01/5972312-planetary-six-pack-poses-a-puzzle
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207020029/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-11 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-11
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)