Talk:HD 209458 b

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: The HD 209458 article says that teams led by Greg Henry and David Charbonneau first detected the transit of HD209458 b, this article mentions only David Charbonneau and Timothy Brown. According to the NASA press release , Greg Henry's group alone found the transit. It could be that NASA didn't know that Charbonneau too had detected the transit. Either way, these articles conflict with each other.--Jyril 10:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transit discoverers

message: We seem to be giving two separate mass measurements for this planet.  From the first section:
:Its mass is 220 times that of Earth's (0.7 Jupiter masses), which indicates that it is probably a gas giant.
And from #Physical parameters:
:Spectroscopic analysis had shown that the planet had a mass about 0.6 times that of Jupiter.
Can we source either?  Or am I misreading something?  --Merovingian ※ Talk 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia says 0.69 Jupiter masses, +/- 0.05, so I guess that would make the first instance in our article (0.7) right.  I have added the source.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's big, but... how big exactly? 

message: Should we add the atmospheric information like planets in our solar system just without percentages?
:Done. --Zimriel (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Relatively speaking, it's in the news.  I, for one, would prefer a tag that better expresses that relationship.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would  be any better? —AySz88\^-^ 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use that; do you think it would work to link the event part to #Atmospheric water vapor?  --Merovingian ※ Talk 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The light is the only witness we have to the event.  And from the light's perspective, this is happening now!  (Special relativity, folks!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.186.218.217 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's only 150 light years removed from earth. 81.247.120.82 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, this article is then wrong. HD 209458 b is a bloated gas giant, whereas the hypothetical Cthonian planets are solid former gas giants that have lost their gaseous outer layers. Fixed.— JyriL talk 10:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I see the problem now.  We just hadn't put the new info into the body of the article.  I took a stab at it. Johntex\talk 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you read the reference? — RJH (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still find that reference a bit confusing.  For instance it says ' "And since I know exactly what physics and chemistry went into my simulation, I know precisely what caused those variations, and I can attribute those variations to water" or other molecules. '.  What is the deal with the "or other molecules" at the end.  Is that saying there is room to doubt what the moleucles are, or is it just confusing syntax by Space.com? Johntex\talk 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, "Barman found the water signature after applying new theoretical models he developed" suggests he was looking for it, and created a way to find it just for this case.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that they tried to find water here before, so yes, this latest attempt was to overcome the problems encountered when SST data was analysed to try and find evidence of water (2005) and the problems with the direct spectral observation (earlier in 2007). Third time lucky, I guess. Carcharoth 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Three paragraphs now. <sigh>. New heading, I agree. Make it chronological, and please can someone make the correct link with the earlier, 2005, IR spectroscopy analysis using SST data? That was IR emitted by the planet. This HST data is absorption spectra of light emitted by the star and passing through the atmosphere edge-on and reaching Earth that way. Maybe a diagram is needed. Carcharoth 09:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Here is how I see it. Back in 2005 the first-ever IR analysis was done (see HD 209458 b#Direct detection). A later spectrum was observed earlier in 2007 (see HD 209458 b#Spectral observation). Unfortunately, the article now contains at least three separate paragraphs attempting to explaing the most recent 2007 analysis. I've rewritten and condensed them into HD 209458 b#Atmospheric water vapor. Carcharoth 09:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atmosphere

message: The term we should be using when describing the water vapor discovery technique is transit spectroscopy (no article yet). This paper and this one both explain it quite well. Carcharoth 13:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transit spectroscopy 

message: how could this article be documenting a current event if this planet is 7 mill light years away and it is observed by a spectroscope now?---Saince 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relatively speaking, it's in the news.  I, for one, would prefer a tag that better expresses that relationship.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would  be any better? —AySz88\^-^ 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use that; do you think it would work to link the event part to #Atmospheric water vapor?  --Merovingian ※ Talk 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The light is the only witness we have to the event.  And from the light's perspective, this is happening now!  (Special relativity, folks!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.186.218.217 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's only 150 light years removed from earth. 81.247.120.82 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How?

message: The article says that it is almost definitely a Chthonian planet, yet the actual articles on Shthonian planets says the opposite.
:Well, this article is then wrong. HD 209458 b is a bloated gas giant, whereas the hypothetical Cthonian planets are solid former gas giants that have lost their gaseous outer layers. Fixed.— JyriL talk 10:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chthonian planet

message: ===Water Vapor or not?===
The lead of the article includes a one sentence statement that water vapor has been detected, and cites a Space.com offer.  However, items in the lead are supposed to be just a sumarry of items elsewhere.  However, I can't find any further mention in the article of water being found.  To the contrary, there is a description that an anticipated spectral peak from water was not found.  Can anyone shed some light on this, please? Johntex\talk 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see the problem now.  We just hadn't put the new info into the body of the article.  I took a stab at it. Johntex\talk 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you read the reference? — RJH (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still find that reference a bit confusing.  For instance it says ' "And since I know exactly what physics and chemistry went into my simulation, I know precisely what caused those variations, and I can attribute those variations to water" or other molecules. '.  What is the deal with the "or other molecules" at the end.  Is that saying there is room to doubt what the moleucles are, or is it just confusing syntax by Space.com? Johntex\talk 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, "Barman found the water signature after applying new theoretical models he developed" suggests he was looking for it, and created a way to find it just for this case.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that they tried to find water here before, so yes, this latest attempt was to overcome the problems encountered when SST data was analysed to try and find evidence of water (2005) and the problems with the direct spectral observation (earlier in 2007). Third time lucky, I guess. Carcharoth 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Three paragraphs now. <sigh>. New heading, I agree. Make it chronological, and please can someone make the correct link with the earlier, 2005, IR spectroscopy analysis using SST data? That was IR emitted by the planet. This HST data is absorption spectra of light emitted by the star and passing through the atmosphere edge-on and reaching Earth that way. Maybe a diagram is needed. Carcharoth 09:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Here is how I see it. Back in 2005 the first-ever IR analysis was done (see HD 209458 b#Direct detection). A later spectrum was observed earlier in 2007 (see HD 209458 b#Spectral observation). Unfortunately, the article now contains at least three separate paragraphs attempting to explaing the most recent 2007 analysis. I've rewritten and condensed them into HD 209458 b#Atmospheric water vapor. Carcharoth 09:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Water

message: The lead of the article includes a one sentence statement that water vapor has been detected, and cites a Space.com offer.  However, items in the lead are supposed to be just a sumarry of items elsewhere.  However, I can't find any further mention in the article of water being found.  To the contrary, there is a description that an anticipated spectral peak from water was not found.  Can anyone shed some light on this, please? Johntex\talk 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see the problem now.  We just hadn't put the new info into the body of the article.  I took a stab at it. Johntex\talk 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Water Vapor or not?

message: This question seems a bit silly, but this discovery incidental or sought out.  I.E., did the scientist say "I'm going to look for water vapor here," or did he discover it incidentally, i.e. "Hey - Is that water vapor?"  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the reference? — RJH (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still find that reference a bit confusing.  For instance it says ' "And since I know exactly what physics and chemistry went into my simulation, I know precisely what caused those variations, and I can attribute those variations to water" or other molecules. '.  What is the deal with the "or other molecules" at the end.  Is that saying there is room to doubt what the moleucles are, or is it just confusing syntax by Space.com? Johntex\talk 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, "Barman found the water signature after applying new theoretical models he developed" suggests he was looking for it, and created a way to find it just for this case.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that they tried to find water here before, so yes, this latest attempt was to overcome the problems encountered when SST data was analysed to try and find evidence of water (2005) and the problems with the direct spectral observation (earlier in 2007). Third time lucky, I guess. Carcharoth 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Water vapor discovery question 

message: We have two paragraphs with almost-identical information, one under "Detection of the atmosphere", the other under "Direct spectral observation".  The news kinda does fit under both headings, which probably means there should be a reorganization of the article.  But in the meantime, I think it's better to keep everything under a single heading; so which would be better? —AySz88\^-^ 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three paragraphs now. <sigh>. New heading, I agree. Make it chronological, and please can someone make the correct link with the earlier, 2005, IR spectroscopy analysis using SST data? That was IR emitted by the planet. This HST data is absorption spectra of light emitted by the star and passing through the atmosphere edge-on and reaching Earth that way. Maybe a diagram is needed. Carcharoth 09:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Here is how I see it. Back in 2005 the first-ever IR analysis was done (see HD 209458 b#Direct detection). A later spectrum was observed earlier in 2007 (see HD 209458 b#Spectral observation). Unfortunately, the article now contains at least three separate paragraphs attempting to explaing the most recent 2007 analysis. I've rewritten and condensed them into HD 209458 b#Atmospheric water vapor. Carcharoth 09:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Vapor paragraphs 

message: It looks like the atmosphere-currents map was just deleted due to copyright vio. I won't miss it. If I recall right, that map dated to 2003 or earlier. There is no way it matches any model that could be devised today, knowing what we know about the surface cloud albedo, stratosphere, chemicals etc. So good riddance I suppose. Still, I'd like to see a map on par with the one we have for HD 189733 b. --Zimriel (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Atmosphere currents map

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through the article and looking into all of the statements that are similar to "As of April 2007..." that should be updated. I would also recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Substituted at 16:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HD 209458 b. 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/20070715071155/http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2007-04/release.shtml to http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2007-04/release.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On September 9 not radial velocity but transiting method was used to observe the planet, however it became an exoplanet candidate much earlier, after observations in 1994–1996: https://archive.org/details/arxiv-astro-ph9911436/page/n1/mode/1up Same goes for List of exoplanets discovered before 2000 BTW. Ain92 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction between discovery date and method