Talk:WASP-43/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Now reviewing.--Dom497 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion needed (See below).--Dom497 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Second Opinion Needed

I (Dom497) took a look at the article nominated and could not come to a conclusion. This was because there were only two references given on the article each being used a number of times. At the same time, there may not be much info on the internet about this topic meaning that a low number of references would be given. My point is that I'm not sure if the article is a pass or a fail because of the number of references given while there may only be two sources on the internet having info on the article topic. Also, it would be pretty hard to find photos of this star on the internet... but it still may be possible. As confusing as it sounds, if anyone has further questions about this article review, please leave a message on my talk page.--Dom497 (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Second opinion-ing, give me a bit to look the article over. --PresN 18:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tweaked some grammar and removed refs from the lead - you don't need refs there if the information is stated later in the article (as it was).
• You forgot a "not" in "planets with orbits around stars like WASP-43 are usually observed" - you said they're commonly found then immediately that they're rare.
• A Hot Jupiter with an orbit of .8 days? Wow.
• I'm cracking up that Dom wants a picture of a star thousands of light-years away.

• You know, it is possible. :P --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• In that, I mean that photos of more distant stars have been taken. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking of distance, is the distance known for this star?
• While 2 references is disturbingly small, that seems to be par for the course for these super-distant newly-found star systems.
• Overall, the article seems to be in line with your other GAs, and sums up every scrap of information that's known about the star. Respond about the distance thing and I'll pass it. --PresN 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added the distance tidbit. Also, I've never known that you don't need to add refs into the lead; previous GA reviews have told me otherwise. That makes life a lot easier, truly. :)

Anyways, thanks to both of you for taking on the review. Dom, it is good to raise questions like this. Don't be afraid to ask, as you did. I don't think GA reviews don't look for the notability of the subject, although it is a good thing to note; in the case of the references, however, they are reliable (a refereed paper and a database that has actually been advocated by professional astronomers) and cover all information present in the article, which fulfills the ref criterion in GA criterion.

As to PresN, thank you for taking on the second opinion. I appreciate your experience and your input. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Passed. --PresN 01:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)