Talk:Upsilon Andromedae c

Upsilon Andromedae c 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

It is requested that an image or photograph of Upsilon Andromedae c 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.

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]

confirmed?

are Upsilon Andromedae c and d confirmed exoplanets? thanks.--190.21.202.38 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2008 (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) 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possible brown dwarf?

I know that the distinguishing low-mass brown dwarfs from high-mass planets is rather difficult, but If the planet mass is 13.98 then it should be qualified as a brown dwarf star. Is it not true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donlevone (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass in the infobox

Why are we using a radial velocity minimum mass (1.98 Jupiter masses), as opposed to the astrometrically-derived true mass (13.98 Jupiter masses)? 46.126.76.193 (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2012 (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]