Talk:K2-18b

Comment on latest edit

This one, where I have recast AstroChara's edit so that it matches the used citation format, without leaving unsourced sentences or unnecessary lead section. I'll do a further edit to readd some things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey,

I've read through your edits, and I noticed that you have reinstated the original leading section, where it emphasizes only one of the many possible models of K2-18 b, and contains a mention of 'similar surface conditions' although we know this planet does not have that, being a subneptunian planet with hydrogen atmosphere. I've tried to amend this section to be less biased by adding mentions of the proposed alternative models, which are equally as valid, if not moreso. What is the reason you decided to remove these additions and not readding them back?

Also, the rationale for moving the magma ocean model to Possible ocean is that it is directly relevant to the plausibility of the the ocean, with the magma ocean model competing with the water ocean model, providing alternative explanations for the observation. I find its placement in the Possible ocean section to be good because it gives the sense of uncertainty to the water ocean model, which is the case in the field. AstroChara (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What exactly was "unsourced" or "unnecessary"? I have read over the edits AstroChara made, and they were all appropriately cited with up-to date sources. Your edit to re-add some things did not include any of the details from newer publications. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 23:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Except the sentence " is also capable of acting as a sink for ammonia, as well as a source for carbon dioxide." which had become detached from

the source. Also, we generally do not put citations in the lead (WP:LEADCITE). Fair point of the magma or water thing; I've added that back in. Also moved the magma ocean bit to the ocean section; was that what you recommended? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you didn't just readd what I wrote, remove the sources from the lead, and alert me to add source to the ammonia section. I will restore my edit with some modifications as you recommended, and add a mention of the gas-rich mini-Neptune model (which is still missing from the lead section) to the text. AstroChara (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The link you provided to leadcite states "Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads." And specifically, "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."

The different models pertaining to the structure of the planet if nothing else should readily be "challengeable", i.e. when newer data and publications come out, it should be updated accordingly. Nowhere does it state "generally do not put citations in the lead", quite the opposite. There are plenty of lede citations that you left completely untouched elsewhere. As for that, thank you for re-adding in the more recent proposal, that is what I was planning to do; though I also must ask what the purpose of completely wiping multiple well-sourced sentences was if your only problem was a single sentence becoming detached from a citation. It seems rather overzealous a response, did you not check first? If you have just modifications to add, wiping it all to trickle a lot of the already present information back in later seems quite redundant.

In any case, I'm glad this seems to be mostly resolved. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 03:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally, "challengeable" does require more than some disagreement around sources. Especially on a topic like an exoplanet, where there will be lots of disagreement on how to interpret scant data. You are liable to either duplicate the rest of the article, or to inadvertently cherry-pick, if you add sources there. WRT rewrite, I think a section like However, a subsequent work finds that a magma ocean is also capable of dissolving ammonia and explaining the observation results, while another paper suggests that a gas-rich mini-Neptune model is capable of replicating the observed amount of methane and carbon dioxide, while a liquid water ocean model requires the presence of a biosphere in order to produce sufficient amount of methane is unnecessarily wordy, especially the "However, a subsequent work finds that" and "while another paper suggests that". I wonder if this block should say that the lack of ammonia is a problem for the gas-rich mini-Neptune model. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wogan 2024 paper finds agreement between their mini-Neptune model and the lack of ammonia detection, so I believe we don’t need such a mention. AstroChara (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Radius Valley mentioned

The paragraph mentioning the Radius Valley in the Physical Properties section is going to lead to confusion. At 2.6 Earth radii, K2-18 b falls significantly outside of it. It would be easy to mistakenly come away from reading that paragraph with the impression that this planet's radius is inside of the Radius Valley because otherwise why would it be included? The Radius Valley is not relevant to this article. 65.175.252.60 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it works as an explanation of the Super-Earth/Sub-Neptune distinction, but maybe it could be moved to a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

New addition

Are we sure that "However, on May 20th 2024, The Astrophysical Journal published a reevaluation of the initial readings which indicate that no biosignatures were ever detected on K2-18b" is interpreting the source correctly? At first glance, it seems to do but syfy references the original paper and it doesn't seem to say such a thing at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: to answer your question honestly, no I am not sure - however, this is why I think it is important to frame the sentences as "these are what the scientists are claiming" instead of putting it as a straight fact. you know what I mean?--Osh33m (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If the original paper does not literally say "no biosignatures were detected at all" then perhaps the source really is just clickbaiting and dismissing the initial findings. --Osh33m (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Osh33m: Here's a publically accessible version of the paper. Also pinging @AstroChara and Xiphosura: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is interpreting the listed source correctly, but SYFY itself seems to have misinterpreted the paper. It isn't even a re-evaluation of the data, it is an attempt to model an atmosphere like K2-18b's to see at what point the DMS becomes clearly detectable, and suggests other signatures to check for. Nothing is explicitly ruled out, it just puts that detection boundary at 20x Earth's biogenic sulfur flux and even goes so far as to say this is "within the plausible range of surface biomass density." I'll rewrite that section and cite the paper directly.

Honestly more concerning to me though is the prior claim of "50% chance of finding life". While it's certainly a legitimate quote from a qualified professional, I fear it will be taken far too seriously as a prediction. That's the sort of wild claim people tend to run with all too eagerly should they find it in WP articles. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 05:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Rewrote your addition a bit, as it was mentioning some IMO unnecessary details or things that fit better in other sections. I wouldn't be averse to removing that claim. That section has a bit of a problem with becoming a list of every attention-getting mention of K2-18b in the media, regardless of WP:Due weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with the suggestion to remove the interview passage. AstroChara (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't we leave some excerpt from the interview? It seems counterproductive to remove any trace of there being that interview entirely given the fact that it exists and offers insight to the ongoing research. --Osh33m (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, have third-party heavy-weight sources discussed that interview? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am sure that they have, but when the discussion here came about removing the interview, it was never about the fact that third party sources weren't added, only about the veracious insinuation of the claim in the interview itself. --Osh33m (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the WP:Undue concern is invalid. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Your inaccurate edits of this article border on vandalism and yet you still hang around here as if your opinion has any weight. 65.175.252.60 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)