Talk:Gliese 876

message: OK you physicists-- stop quibbling over magnitudes and invent us a starship! Sean7phil 23:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet c in habitable zone? 

message: This article matches the standard of other GAs on a similar topic, so I have no hesitation in passing it. Congratulations. It's good to see that Wikipedia is so well-served in terms of astronomy articles. MLilburne 08:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA

message: Wasn't the new planet found in the solarsystem to gliese 581 and not 876? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dead Fish Jr (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're completely different systems. Gliese 876 d was in the news a couple of years ago when it was the smallest known extrasolar planet around a normal star. It is no way habitable as it orbits very close to its star.— JyriL talk 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  876/581 

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 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) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: There are three mentions of the mass of 876d. The first one is given as the initial estimate. The second is given as an estimate using orbital parameters. The third, given in the table, is different from both of these masses, yet it doesn't state in the article how that mass was derived. The same goes for the mass of 876c, which is different in the table from the "true mass" whose derivation was explained in the article. I'm not well-verse in extrasolar planetary systems, so I'm wondering if someone can clear up this confusion. 98.180.50.81 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on the planetary system could do with a rewrite. The table values are from the most recent study of the system and based on the largest radial velocity dataset available. Icalanise (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masses of Gliese 876d and 876? 

message: Does anybody know where the rotational velocity of 1.38 km/s came from? The value seems unusually concise. I checked the very recent Jenkins et al. (2008), but they only list a value <= 2.0. SIMBAD doesn't have any values listed for . I tried checking the other reference links in the infobox, but didn't find it. (I'm also curious how the rotation period was determined. Is the inclination of the axis known?) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it.—RJH (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotational velocity 

message: I think the table of planetary orbital elements should mention the same proviso that is listed in the paper: "Quoted uncertainties in planetary masses and semi-major axes do not incorporate the uncertainty in the mass of the star." After all, the mass of the star is only known within ~9%.—RJH (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, done. Icalanise (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you kindly.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital elements 

message: Need an astronomy photo of Gliese 876 for the infobox.
Something like this http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980626.html.  That one is from the NASA site, but I'm pretty sure its by an amateur astronomer, so not sure about permissions.  
Anyone have a telescope with a decent camera ?  --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of the Star 

message: Would improve the article a lot to have an animation to illustrate the orbital properties of the planetary system.  Something like the Jupiter one:
Or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Animation_of_the_planetary_system_around_Sun-like_star_HD_10180.ogv
--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resonance Animation 

message: I've had a skim through the standards relating to the definition of a "good topic" and I'm unsure as to where this current article fails.  If there are specific portions that are causing concern could the nominator for removal provide a short list of areas that need to be addressed? Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem isn't with this article, but rather Gliese 876 e (which isn't a good article currently). Armbrust The Homunculus 05:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidature for Good Topic Removal