Talk:Astronomers find water vapour in atmosphere of exoplanet K2-18b

@Robertinventor: I see this is right up your alley, Rob. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Yes it does interest me but I have some other things priority right now sadly.

Some things you might like to add:

Press release: "Water vapour in the atmosphere of the habitable-zone eight-Earth-mass planet K2-18 b"

Nature article https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02721-2

The planet wouldn't block the light out completely, just a slight dip as it moves across the face of the star behind it, a small dot against a larger star and only some of the light filtered out in its atmosphere which would just be like a thin ring around the main body of the planet as seen from Earth. I.e. if you could see it close up you'd see a small black spot move across the face of the star and looking very carefully with delicate instruments you'd see a slight dimming of the background star in a thin circle around the black blocked out planet. It's remarkable that they can notice such small changes as the light filtering through the atmosphere of a tiny planet moving across a distant star. With the James Webb telescope they will be able to get higher resolution, more wavelengths and more details of other atoms / molecules. Robertinventor (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You know I like to give you the first crack at these things, Robert. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Nature Preview

The Nature Astronomy source was here used solely to confirm that the paper exists and the identities of the authors, all of which are available in the abstract and first page. I did not access any paywalled content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4512626 [Passed]

Revision 4512626 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I struggled with the lede. What UCL did in their submission wasn't "report" on the Montreal findings in the way I understand it (especially not in a journalistic sense of the word). I suspect a better term would be "verify" or "replicated" the conclusions. In the end I called it a separate report, because it goes on to say they confirmed it with the same data but different software. Other than that, I think it was just the normal tidying we all receive when somebody copy-edits our work. I should also say, I added the image before I decided I would do the review. If this is deemed objectionable, please remove it. I will point out, however, it is the exact same image as used by two of the sources. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4512626 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I struggled with the lede. What UCL did in their submission wasn't "report" on the Montreal findings in the way I understand it (especially not in a journalistic sense of the word). I suspect a better term would be "verify" or "replicated" the conclusions. In the end I called it a separate report, because it goes on to say they confirmed it with the same data but different software. Other than that, I think it was just the normal tidying we all receive when somebody copy-edits our work. I should also say, I added the image before I decided I would do the review. If this is deemed objectionable, please remove it. I will point out, however, it is the exact same image as used by two of the sources. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Had you added the image after publication and not self-sighted, I would be willing to sight it. Perhaps ideally we'd do things in that order, but on this occasion it seems well enough. --Pi zero (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Wavelengths

@Darkfrog24: I hope my new wording makes it clear it's not all wavelengths of light. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a tricky thing, tinkering with wording after archiving has kicked in. Taking spelling errors as a baseline, which are the most usual case, a spelling correction would be allowed provided it doesn't change the perceived meaning, while a spelling error that changes the meaning would require a {{correction}}. --Pi zero (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I know. But it's a simple adjective. We are at 36 hours and not 24 hours, but nothing was factually corrected. The article never stated it was all wavelengths. Please, Pi, take your eye off recent changes and work on the review. Nothing that happens can't be fixed after midnight. --SVTCobra 21:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I have to follow RC; something on it might bear on what I'm working on. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the meaning was clearest the way I had it, but I'm not going to fight you on it, SVT. It's better than it was. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)