this article about a newly discovered star is short, but FA criteria states "of appropriate length". As almost nothing is known about this stellar object, it is the appropriate length. is there anything else that could prevent this article becoming featured? cheers. Zzzzz 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- no information about who discovered it and when.
- very technical article maybe simplify a bit.
- it's not a smooth read with some unencyclopedic statements such as "HD 217107 is not very distant from the Sun"
- to expand it maybe compare its statistics to neighbouring stars
- explain why little information is known about... is it too far away?
- An article mentions a study - to expand the article elaborate on who performed the study, when and why. Also it be good to know from who'm all the statistics in the article came from.
Thanks. - Tutmosis 02:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The age listed in the table is 77 billion years, which is much older than the current age estimates for the universe. What are the units for the metallicity? It isn't given. A lookup on the SIMBAD site gives an error estimate for the parallax. Please include that in the table, as it is important to know the accuracy of the distance estimate. The SIMBAD site also gives a number of other identifiers for the star. Please include the FK5 and SAO identifiers. Also the identifier prefixes can be linked to the appropriate catalogue descriptions, as is done, for example, on the Sirius page. Finally the ARICNS site gives a U-B value of 0.42. Thanks. — RJH 14:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)