Talk:HIP 13044 b

On the two models of planet formation

From the article:

The planet challenges the core-accretion model of planet formation, due to the low metallicity of the parent star, making it unlikely a planetary core of sufficient mass formed, and may signify it was formed via the competing disk instability model of planet formation.

Where's the challenge here? Just because one planetary system probably was formed via the disk instability model doesn't mean that the core-accretion model can't apply elsewhere. Consider the paper, "Planetary Formation Scenarios Revisited: Core-Accretion versus Disk Instability" [ http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/662/2/1282/]. From the abstract:

These results are compared to the 161 detected planets for each spectral type of the central stars. The results show that 90% of the detected planets are consistent with the core-accretion model regardless of the spectral type. The remaining 10% are not in the region explained by the core-accretion model, but are explained by the disk instability model.

In other words, we already have strong indication that both models apply to planetary formation. Hence, discovering another planet which could only form with one model doesn't imply a challenge to the other model. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The image and the telescope question

Are there any image experts here? Does any one have an idea if the telescope image is ok to download? The image for the planet itself says:

"All ESO still and motion pictures are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported, unless the credit byline indicates otherwise."

Is that also true of the telescope image? I already built a page for MPG/ESO telescope and would be good to have a picture of the telescope too, both there and here. I can download it, but a "yes" on licensing will help. Or if you know it is ok and want to download and add it, that would be good to. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that looks like a valid image for commons; there may be an appropriate template for the ESO images. Do click to get the larger image. That said, I think it only appropriate for the article on the telescope. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will download it. But what do you mean by "the larger image"? History2007 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The image is clearly marked as ESO image with a link to a clear-cut creative commons license, thus I see no problem whatsoever. He meant don't save the thumb but first click on it, to get a higher resolution image, and only then click with right mouse button and save it. Materialscientist (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I already added it to MPG/ESO telescope. History2007 (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even higher resolution available on the right; get this one (4.7mb). My only concern is the bit about the personality right of the guy in the image; it seemed fuzzy enough to me, but others may think differently. And this should be uploaded to *Commons* ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hang-tight; I'll do it. Jack Merridew 06:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will just leave it to you. History2007 (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

{{done}

Commons:File:Esopia00046teles.jpg

I'm going to add it to the telescope article and the version here should be deleted in due course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HIP 13044 b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• Photometry links to a disambiguation page currently; have it link to the astronomy one.
  •  Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 18:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Refs #1 and 3 need publishers listed
  •  Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 18:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold and will pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a requirement for GA status, but I was just curious why The planet's discovery was announced on November 18, 2010. has seven cites. Is it controversial AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of those references were just there before I got there. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Seem a little bit like overkill. Maybe you would consider trimming them to one or two? I see one is to Science and another is to Scientific America. As I said above, this is not a requirement so don't feel you have to. AIRcorn (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I just assumed that some of those were also for the preceding sentence, though perhaps that's not the case. Ideally seven are not needed and it can be trimmed, but nonetheless I'm passing it since that's not something that would keep it from being a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Helmi stream

Should this article, like the one about its star, be placed in Category:Helmi stream? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Failed follow-up confirmation

See this article published in A&A - [1] -- follow-up observations failed to confirm the existence of this planet. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Delisted

This is a procedural delist as the article is a redirect. AIRcorn (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)