Talk:TOI-1853 b

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I think you should be autopatrolled. thanks.

Aszx5000 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Size comparison of TOI-1853 b (middle) with Earth and Neptune

• ... that TOI-1853 b (pictured) is a Neptune-sized exoplanet denser than steel?

• Source: de Lazaro, Enrico (2023-09-04). "Supermassive Neptune-Sized Exoplanet Has Density Higher than Steel". Sci.News.

• • ALT1: ... that the Neptune-sized exoplanet TOI-1853 b (pictured) might be almost entirely made of solid rock and water? Source: "TOI-1853 b is best described as a bare core of half water and half rock with no or negligible envelope, or as having at most 1% atmospheric H/He mass fraction on top of a 99% Earth-like rocky interior"
    Naponiello, Luca; et al. (2023-08-30). "A super-massive Neptune-sized planet". Nature. 622 (7982): 255–260. arXiv:2309.01464. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06499-2.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Grillmair
  • Comment:

Created by Nrco0e (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC).

• Starting the review:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC) @Nrco0e: This is in pretty good shape! For full disclosure, I used a script that feeds snippets of the article and the cited sources to an LLM to help with spot-checking for verifiability and plagiarism. You can see the results at User talk:Rjjiii § LLM disclosure. I also checked everything manually. No issues with the article. The ALT0 hook sounds good. For the ALT1 hook to be promoted, it needs to be phrased as definite fact (maybe about what the scientists said?). I like the image a lot for the infobox. For DYK, it most likely won't be used as it's too hard to parse at thumbnail size. The DYK guideline at WP:DYKIMG says that " images in particular must display well in the small size of the {{main page image/DYK}} template (140x140 pixels, adjusted for aspect ratio)". The guideline does allow though for doing a modified version of this image even if that exact file isn't used in the article, so you could do (for example) a crop with fewer words or no words. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Rjjiii: Thank you for the thorough review! I've made a textless version of the image here: File:TOI-1853 b size comparison textless.png. Let me know if that is acceptable. I was considering rephrasing ALT1 to say "scientists think that the Neptune-sized exoplanet TOI-1853 b (pictured) is entirely made of solid rock and water", but I still personally prefer ALT0. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Nrco0e: gotcha. I'll approve both hooks with a preference as well for ALT0. I don't have any issues with the image. If you (or the promoter) would like, the thumbnail can use the |link= parameter to still link to the original full image at File:TOI-1853 b size comparison.png with the legend. Good luck with the GA nomination, and I look forward to seeing this show up on the Main Page. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Orbit diagram

Diagram of the TOI-1853 system, with distances and radii to scale

File:TOI-1853_b_orbit_diagram.png is confusing, because it is very different from the geometry as seen from Earth, and as described in the §Orbit and Temperature section directly next to it (viewed nearly edge-on, rather than from the top):

The orbit of TOI-1853 b is inclined 84.7° with respect to the sky plane, which allows it to transit its host star from Earth's point of view. Viewed from Earth, TOI-1853 b takes about 1.19 hours to transit its host star. Although the planet's orbital inclination with respect to its host star's rotation axis is unknown, it is predicted that the planet's orbital inclination is aligned with its star's rotation due to tidal interactions.

I suggest to either clarify in the image description that this isn't what its orbit looks like from Earth, but that it is a generic top-down view (assuming that the orbit is aligned, as predicted?); or to replace the image entirely. An image with the "correct" geometry could help illustrate the transit lightcurve and radial velocity plot in the §Discovery section. Renerpho (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Something like this: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/eqnsjnagnz Renerpho (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Yeah, it would make more sense to have a diagram that takes inclination into account. I'll add this in a bit, thanks for doing the work for me! Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Here: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ugcibj7dmv Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 04:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. :) Renerpho (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:TOI-1853 b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: OzmoOzmo (talk · contribs) 02:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Quick fail check

• Not a long way from meeting any one of the good article criteria.
• Using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, the closest match was 7.4% with https://www.space.com/scorching-neptune-size-world-super-massive, and the only match was with the name of the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite.
• No cleanup banners.
• No recent edit warring.
• No previous GA reviews.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article is good, but there are still some issues with clearness, conciseness, and editorializing.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are some issues with clearness and conciseness related to linking in the article. I have boldly fixed the issue in the lead section, but there are still issues. For example, conventional theories of planetary formation and evolution does not make clear which theory it is referring to. There is also an issue with editorializing in the section Hypothesized composition, regarding However, the atmosphere of TOI-1853 b is expected to be thin, so detecting it with JWST will likely prove difficult. The editorializing should be removed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   This article contains editorializing, which is a type of synthesization (see above).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold to let contributors improve the article before failing (see issues above).

Response

Hello OzmoOzmo, I have cleaned out the editorial statements and elaborated on the "conventional" pebble accretion theory in the article. Is there anything else I missed? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, then I would say this is a  Pass.

(To future readers of this review: this is one of my first times reviewing a good article, so if I have made any mistakes, let me know).

Promoting. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 07:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)