Talk:Ross 128 b

Tidally locked or not?

I have not read the research paper, but the Ross 128 article states that the planer Ros 128b is not tidally locked, while this article states the opposite. If unknown, we should state so. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Tidal locking would be expected for a planet like this, but there is no evidence for it. Certainly no mention of it in the discovery (only) paper. Some of the chattering websites discuss this, one I found even has a quote from someone who works at an observatory (it doesn't say at what!) to that effect. Some inline citations would be good, at least give us a hope of verifying claims. This article in particular cannot make that claim on the basis of its only reference, especially since the inline citations just petered out after the first section. Ross 128 is more comprehensively referenced, but the given reference for its bold claim doesn't seem to mention tidal locking one way or the other. I'll look the other way for a moment, but might just come back and delete these claims when I'm in a foul mood. Lithopsian (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible copy+paste from Proxima Centauri b page

I’ve noticed most of the content on this page seems to be almost a variation of that which is on the Proxima Centauri b page. Although I could be mistaken, there is quite a lot of content here that is identical to Proxima’s b text. Plus, the lack of sources seem to further suggest this was just a copy+paste with adjustments to the sections to be relevant to the information of the host star and planet itself. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. Copying an existing article is a very easy way to make a new one, and I don't think there is a problem so long as it ends up accurate and readable. Next? It certainly needs better citations, I've tagged it to say so. That might be tricky since behind the scenes there is really only one source, but there is plenty of internet commentary on this planet, even a few interviews with scientists, as well citations that could be given for background information. I'm also dropping it from C to Start, can hardly be considered C class with a single citation and some dodgy cut'n'paste paragraphs. Lithopsian (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

We can use a couple of additional references from the mass media, such as BBC Science. Will take a look next. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I too think that more attention should be paid to the reliability of the sources, since the discovery was announced just few days ago and newspaper articles are mostly speculative. For instance, "The planet is considered as one of the most Earth-like worlds ever found in relation to temperatures, size and rather quiet host star"... well, by who? Habitability of red dwarf systems is still an open issue. Adjustments of the content of Proxima Centauri b page may result in an original research, if not supported by realible sources. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please, which is the source for the value of the radius? I remove it from the Infobox, as it lacks in the paper in which the discovery is presented as also here. Do you agree? --Harlock81 (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This page may be a source for an estimated value of the planetary radius: 0.8 ≤ R ≤ 1.5. --Harlock81 (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)