Talk:Upsilon Andromedae b

Upsilon Andromedae 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 13, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 18, 2008	Good topic candidate	Promoted
February 23, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
February 11, 2015	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Good article

NOT a Hot Jupe

The claim that this planet would not have moons due to tidal forces is erroneous as the referenced paper applies only to close-in hot jupiters that orbit their primaries in a matter of days. UMa b has an orbit more akin to Mars or Jupiter in our own system and as such is a candidate for having moons, potentially of terrestrial size.75.67.80.68 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Good Article

After review, I've determined that this article meets the qualifications for GA status. It is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive. I'm "Mass Passing" this article along with 9 others. The entire list is below. If new developments arise that would effect the references or comprehensiveness of this article, it may affect the others as well.

Keep up the good work. These articles are ideal "good articles". They can't be FA, because there is no way for them to get long enough, but they are as comprehensive and complete as possible, and represent a good effort on the part of the editors. Feel free to message me if you have any questions about my rationale. Phidauex 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

news!

fire and ice

Always upload NASA images to COMMONS! -Pedro 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actully, i think it was more about the article than the pics

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) 08:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Upsilon Andromedae d which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upsilon Andromedae b. 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/20080518004158/http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/upsand.html to http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/upsand.html

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) 13:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]