Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Talk:Kepler-7

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Felixboy (talk | contribs) at 00:37, 2 March 2011 (changed GAN to on hold status). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 13 years ago by Felixboy in topic GA Review
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: •Felix• T 20:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just put the criteria down, I am currently in the process of reviewing. •Felix• T 20:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • 1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;  

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.  

Ok here: *“Kepler-7 is named the way it is because it was the home to the seventh planetary system discovered by..” can be made a little clearer and more straighforward. Suggestion “Kepler-7 received its name because it is the home to the seventh planetary system discovered by…”

  Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

*”In other words, the star is about 35% more massive than the Sun and 84% wider.” While it is not a major issue, can something else be substituted for ‘in other words’, perhaps this sentence could be combined with the one preceding it with a word like ‘meaning that’ or something along those lines. Also does ‘more massive’ mean the same in this context as ‘larger’? Is so than that might make it look a little cleaner. Lastly, the ‘84% wider’ should be somewhere before what it is describing, the Sun. If this a little confusing here is a sample sentence, “… about 35% larger and 84% wider than the Sun”

More massive and larger are different; for example, an iron dumbbell would be more massive than a piece of plastic of the same shape and size. I've addressed your two other comments, though. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ah, yes that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. •Felix• T 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

*Also several wikilinks are repeated twice and do not need to be, the three I found are Earth, Sun, and Kepler Mission.

I delinked those three and NASA. I'll keep looking for more. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

*Also per the Manual of Style, names of major geographical locations should not be wikilinked, in this article there are some for places like Hawaii, Texas, Arizona, etc.

  Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • 2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;  

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;  

(c) it contains no original research.  

  • 3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; 

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).  

  • 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.  
  • 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]  
  • 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[6]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;  

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.  

Additional Note - A Stub cannot be a good article, this issue must be resolved before the nomination process can move forward.

If you meant removing the stub tag, then it has been taken off. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply


Ok, looks like all these have been fixed up and one final look over the article I just made shows everything seems good. I am awarding Kepler-7 good article status. Good work Starstriker7 and all other editors who contributed to this article. •Felix• T 23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply