Talk:HD 217107 b

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HD 217107 b article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

HD 217107 b 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 b 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 25, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 4, 2008	Good topic candidate	Promoted
February 23, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

It is requested that an image or photograph of HD 217107 b 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.

Upload

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

All 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. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As 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) 07:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

too short

It's obviously too short for a GA.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]