 | Kepler-7 is currently a Physics and astronomy good article nominee. Nominated by Starstriker7(Talk) at 08:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.
|
 | Astronomy: Astronomical objects Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- 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)
I just put the criteria down, I am currently in the process of reviewing. •Felix• T 20:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- 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…”
*”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)
- Ah, yes that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. •Felix• T 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
*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)
*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.
- 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)
- 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)