Talk:Kepler-40b

Kepler-40b 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 13, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that extrasolar planet KOI-428b was confirmed as a planet after astronomers compiled the equivalent to one night of observations on the planet using a 1.93m telescope?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:KOI-428b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Well written and accords sufficiently with MoS.

I think that the phrase KOI-428b is a Hot Jupiter discovered in the orbit of the star KOI-428, would be better as KOI-428b is a Hot Jupiter planet discovered in the orbit of the star KOI-428,
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References appear to check out, I note that the PDF ref #1[1] is extremely slow to download, it might be good to mention this.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
no images used.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Inverse English

"The planet is also nearly thirteen times hotter than Jupiter and orbits five times closer to its star than Mercury does to the Sun." I'm OK with "five times farther," but I have trouble with using the term "five times closer" to describe a fraction of a distance. Would it be simpler to state that [KOI-428b] orbits its sun at 1/5 the distance that Mercury orbits the Sun?

Nei1 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "five times farther" is okay, then so is "five times closer". "Closer" means "at a smaller distance", so it is simply okay as long as the reference point is clearly mentioned. Here, that it is the case (aside from the slightly weird English, which I've fixed). --JorisvS (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]