# Talk:Kepler-14b

The semi-major axis of 8.213 AU cannot be correct for a period of ~6.8 days. The paper refers to this as Scaled semimajor axis a/R and is not in AUs. I cannot find a ref to the true semi-major axis and leave it to someone more knowledgeable to correct it.
66.27.66.8 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I'll see what I can do about it. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find a ref either. I've commented out the information until the semimajor axis is deduced. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 04:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
a/R is unitless. The R is the radius of the star. So the semi-major axis would be about 8 times the value of R. That *should* be mentioned in the paper somewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.109.85 (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've added something about it in the Characteristics section. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 01:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On checking the reference given for the alternative designations, I find only the list of alternative designations for the star. Clicking through to the page for the planet gives only the Kepler-14b designation [1]. Can we have a reference which shows these designations in usage for the planet? My expectation is that the only alternative designation would be a KOI identifier. Icalanise (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. That was definitely very OR of me. :P
I don't recall seeing even the KOI name for the planet referenced anywhere. I'll remove the information for now until I can find something to back it up. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well the host star has the designation KOI-98, so the expected designation would presumably be KOI-98.01. There is an entry KOI-98.01 in the Kepler planet candidates table which appears to correspond to this object and I personally would be happy with this identification, but whether that is going too far into original research is another matter. Icalanise (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Other sources already refer to the star as KOI-98, so I don't think it would be too far of a venture to use the Kepler database source. Thanks for noting that; I'd forgotten to check Kepler's actual website. :P --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 06:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-14b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Starstriker7 (or his sidekick)

1a: I went through and copyedited the prose for clarity throughout. (It needed more than most of your GA noms need.) I want to be sure I didn't inadvertently remove any important data or introduce any inaccuracies. Please check my changes, if you would. The prose changes I didn't feel comfortable making are listed below.
I've taken a look at them. They're all good except for one little tidbit, which I fixed here. --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Great, done. – Quadell (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1a: The last sentence of the lead is confusing to me. What couldn't the Kepler team determine? Is it still undetermined? I think rewording would help.
I tried to clarify it. How does it look? --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Much clearer, thanks. – Quadell (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1a: "Because the transit signal... was deep,..." This technical language would not be understood by most readers, including me.
All set. --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1a: You use "use" way too often in the 2nd paragraph of "Discovery" (7 times), and once there's a "Use the" that seems not to belong at all.
I've varied the wording. As for that last "use the", it was actually supposed to have an of in it. That has been added as well. --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1a: "The combined results of Kepler-14 is an F-type star..." That sounds to me like it's possible that neither star is actually F-type, but that if Kepler-14 were a single star (which it's not), it would be an F-type star. Is that correct? I think rewording would help.
I actually skipped around when I was reading your comments, and I fixed the one below without reading this one. Hopefully my re-rephrasing didn't complicate the passage further. :P --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Good, as below. – Quadell (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1a: "Kepler-14 is 1.512 solar masses and 2.048 solar radii, which means that Kepler-14 is 151% the mass of and 205% the radius of the Sun." Since solar mass and solar radius are linked, I don't think this explanation is useful. It's more important to explain how a single radius applies to two separate stars, which I still don't understand.
I've removed the first part and tried to emphasize how each single characteristic involves the star system as a whole. What do you think? --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1b: It seems to me that the last paragraph of "Discovery" and the last paragraph of "Host star system" should be merged and moved to the "Characteristics" section. Does that sound like an improvement to you?
I guess it must have. :) – Quadell (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1b: Can stellar coordinates be added?
 Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1b: I don't think it's proper to use a {{main}} template to a non-existing article. Would you want to go ahead and create the Kepler-14 article? (Or are you putting off the DYK countdown clock?) There are a lot of redlinks. HIRES is mentioned at the W. M. Keck Observatory article, and IRAC is mentioned at Spitzer Space Telescope... should these instruments have their own articles? If so, that's fine, but if not then they shouldn't be links.
I've dealt with the redlinks for Kepler-14, Kepler Follow-up Program, and gyrochronological age. I've removed the instrument redlinks for now, as they are all mentioned at their respective telescopes. Perhaps they shall be articles another day. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
2a: Are references 2 and 3 different? They seem the same to me.
Ref 2 is the actual paper, and Ref 3 is the abstract form on ArXiv. Ref 3 holds information that the paper itself actually doesn't; the two tidbits of info I cited are in the abstract preprint, and not the paper. --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. – Quadell (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
6b: Stop me if you've heard this one before, but... images would be nice. You could include a map of Lyra with a text description of the host star's location... though that would be more appropriate in the Kepler-14 article, whenever it comes into being. You could also add a "discovery" related image, as you have in previous GA noms. Do either of these sound proper?
It does sound proper. :) I'll start looking in a sec... --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. – Quadell (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Kepler-14b.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)