Talk:Kepler-5b

Kepler-5b 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
May 19, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 18, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Kepler-5b's extreme temperature, small orbit, and large size have brought attention to the extrasolar planet as a possible case study into similar extreme planets?

Orphaned references in Kepler-5b

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kepler-5b's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EPE":

From Kepler-8b: "Notes for star Kepler-8". Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. 2010. Retrieved 18 March 2011.
From Kepler (spacecraft): Schneider, Jean. "Star:Kepler-9". EPE. Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 2011-04-23.
From Kepler-5: "Notes for star Kepler-5". Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. 2010. Retrieved 26 February 2011.
From Kepler-6b: Jean Schneider (2010). "Notes for star Kepler-6". Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 30 April 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-5b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tarret ^talk 18:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Due to having similar structures and being relate topics the articles Kepler-5b, Kepler-6b, and Kepler-7b were reviewed simlutaneously. Also, the current GA-class article Kepler-4b, was used as a "model" article for this review process.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Very well written articles. Where possible try to use the same section headings across each article where the content is of a similar nature for example one article calls a section "Host Star" and another "Parent Star". Also, if possible merge all of the "Kepler-x System" templates into one "Kepler Mission" template and remove the "See Also" at the end of the articles which contain them.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
In general very good articles, keep up the good work and if possible feel free to visit WP:GAN and review an article.