Talk:HD 154672 b/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 18:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: 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.	Great prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows MoS: good lede, proper infobox, etc.
	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.	The "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).	Well-sourced. No plagiarism detected.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It's a short article, but not much information exists as of yet.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems.
	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 license, well sourced.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good caption.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations, all issues dealt with.

Resolved issues

• Per Wikipedia:SEEALSO, the "See also" section should not contain articles linked to in the body of the article itself.
• Does the external link provide any information not present in the sources? It seems to me in should be removed.
  •  Done I've resolved both comments by removing each section (the external link section didn't really provide anything new). --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

• There are no images, and of course a photo can't be created at this time. But would a photo of the Magellan Telescopes or Las Campanas Observatory be warranted? The Visual Exoplanet Catalog shows this comparison diagram, which seems useful to me, and could be created in photoshop or even MS-Paint. Would an image like this be helpful?
  • I hadn't even thought of that. :) I've added two images in. I had a few problems with the licensing of HD 154672 b's orbit (I don't want to risk drawing it incorrectly, given my ineptness at Photoshop and my inability to access Paint), but hopefully I've addressed it fully in the image summary. What do you think? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the drawing got removed quickly. It might be useful to be recreated, if someone has the ability and motivation, but it's certainly not an obstacle to GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Except for ancillary information, you rely almost entirely on the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia and Lopez-Morales' 2008 paper. I found this paper (2009), which seems to confirm and refine some statistics. ("López-Morales et al. used 16 velocity points in their orbital solution for HD 154672 over a number of orbital periods of the planet. We find a very similar solution with a slightly reduced rms of 3.37 m s−1.") Should material from this paper be added?
  • I've added a bit. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Great! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Nitpicks

• The lede does not need footnoted citations, since it should not (and does not) provide material not given in the body, and the facts can be cited there. This isn't a big enough deal to sink a GA nomination, but I thought I'd bring it up.
  • I've had problems with this in the past with previous GA reviewers, so I assumed it was buried somewhere deep in MOS. Thanks for the catch. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

Thanks for reviewing the article, Quadell. I appreciate that you took the time not just to review, but also to find a paper reference that I could use to beef it up. That is seriously good stuff. Keep up the good work! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Great working with you, and congrats! I see you have plenty of nominations open, so I'll probably run into you again soon. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)