Talk:Kepler-8
 | Kepler-8 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-8/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: •Felix• T 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. 
:OK, nothing big here. Just, again, there is some unneeded repetition of wikilinking and non-necessary wikilinks to geographical articles like there was on Kepler-7. Also the 'Astrometry' section of the box at top is just a little untidy. There are my only two points of improvement for this article so far. •Felix• T 19:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Resolved. •Felix• T 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- 2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
- 3. Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]
- 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[6]
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kepler-8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121153932/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-8 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-8
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)