Talk:Kepler-7/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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…”

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

*”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)

*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.

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

• 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)