Talk:K2-18b

Is water confirmed or not?

This source says that apparently the presence of water is not confirmed. I've taken the Madhusudhan 2023 source as evidence that it isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Lyman alpha transit

The article currently treats it as questionable, but this source seems to take it for granted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Online radio interview

I kinda wonder if this addition is giving one radio interview WP:UNDUE weight. A quick Googling doesn't show any indication that it drew particular attention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My issue isn’t with undue weight as much as it is with duplicating content. The Planetary Society is pretty notable, but the information presented appears to duplicate what is already in the current version. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a very handy multimedia interview for those who are not good at reading and like to listen when they want. Yes, it isn't a particularly weighty interview, although it was among the first few that my search engine came up with when I started searching. I think taking out the sentence: "From the transcription: "K2-18 b spectra [from the] James Webb Space Telescope's (JWST) NIRISS and NIRSpec instruments detected methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of exoplanet K2-18 b, along with potential traces of dimethyl sulfide (DMS), a substance that is created on Earth by living creatures" would go along way to stop any duplication - the all important observations by MIRI aren't mentioned anywhere and nor is the lack of water in the atmosphere. Those MIRI observations that happen this January (perhaps already have) will give more robust results.

As for the spectra, I have uploaded it to Wiki Commons under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license as explained here https://esawebb.org/copyright/. It was downloaded from here: https://esawebb.org/images/weic2321b/ and is high quality. NASA images are free to upload and I have done over a hundred. As long as the authors are credited, it is fit for purpose: the article is bereft of images and a picture is worth a thousand words... Richard Nowell (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If the content can be used, I would merge it into the respective sections. There’s no need to talk about the podcast and we don’t need to crystal ball future results. Just expand what we already have. Viriditas (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure the podcast has a lot of information that the article doesn't already contain. The spectra are OK, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image of JWST spectra with credits. I think it is a useful and attractive image that adds clarity to that section and can also be used outside WP. Richard Nowell (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas mentioned this discussion to me on my talkpage. I am fine with the podcast as a source, for sure. Not sure the podcast as a podcast necessarily deserves its own paragraph, but the JWST observations generally ought to be discussed. jps (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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)