Talk:HD 217107 c
 | HD 217107 c has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
 | HD 217107 c is part of the HD 217107 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of HD 217107 c be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | It is requested that an astronomy diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
Redirected
editAll extrasolar planets are sectioned in it's stars artical. The only time exoplanets are made into there own artical is if they are of big news and of public intrest (i.e. OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, 51 Pegasi b, HD 188753 Ab). These planets are not of any of these standerds, why should they be treeted with royalty. They should be in the star's artical as of wiki rules and tradition. — HurricaneDevon @ 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is better to discuss and find an agreement before acting on such a controversial issue like this, even if you think you're right. By doing this you can avoid pointless edit wars.--Jyril 05:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
GA Sweeps Review: Pass
editAs part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)