Talk:WASP-44b/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomitator: User:Starstriker7

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MoS followed.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References section is fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All the sources that exist are here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article is mercifully devoid of speculation about what lifeforms may be waiting there.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	As complete as possible.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Free, legit, and tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image is bad-ass. (Caption is fine.)
	7. Overall assessment.	Glad to pass this GA nom.

1a: Which is better? "Jupiter-size planet" or "Jupiter-sized planet"? ("You want me to Jupiter-size that for just thirty-five cents more?)
- Haha. XD All fixed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1a: In the lede, the orbital period sentence seem to split up a couple of sentences about the planets discovery. Would in be better elsewhere in the lede?
- I've done plenty of re-arranging and a small add. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1a: "searched the night sky for transits" is a bit lingo-ish. It's better to explain, which will probably involve splitting the sentence.
- All set to go. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1a: "This notice came about" is a little odd. "This was discovered", maybe?
- "This was discovered" didn't seem to fit quite right, so I tried something different. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1a: I don't know what "the most honest solution" means.
- I gave a clarification a shot. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1b: See Talk:WASP-44/GA1 for discussion about the navbox.

1b: The category "Hot Jupiters" is in the category "Gas Giants". Is there some reason this article should have both categories? If not, just keep the "Hot Jupiters" one. Similarly, should a planet be in the "Cetus constellation" category?
- Well, it is in the Cetus constellation, so I'd say it should. I'll nix the Gas giant category momentarily.
2b: There's an accuracy tag in the "Other designations" section of the infobox, and discussion on the talk page about it.
- All dealt with. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6b: You know me -- I like pictures. They're pretty.
- And, in this case, big and metal and shiny also! :D --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, that's the coolest one yet, for real. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]