Talk:Kepler-11/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The article, though small, does a good job of covering the brand new subject of this newly discovered system.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Generally very good, but there are a few minor typos, capitalization, and grammar problems. For example, replace a phrase like "A and/or B" with "A, B, or both" to comply with WP:MOS.

   Could you direct me a bit more? I'm not quite sure where to start. I just read it over and it looked okay to me. (That's definitely a problem. :P ) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   All references look good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Almost perfect, but I have a question about the first paragraph in the Planetary system section. Does the reference at the end of that paragraph cover all the claims made in it?

   I believe so. This was the system's discovery paper. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Seems like it covers everything there is to know about the system so far, which isn't a lot, since we've only known about it for a few weeks.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All public domain images; thanks NASA!

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I think the images need better alt-text.

    Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is very very close; it just needs a little copy editing, some clarification on the sourcing, and better alt text for the images.

Reviewer: —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy editing

I'll bold the problem spots.

Lead

• Kepler-11 is a sunlike star in the constellation Cygnus...

I believe that should be hyphenated; also, is there anything you could wikilink that word to?

 Done and  Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Announced on February 2, 2011, the star system is the most compact and one of the flattest known, and is the first star system with more than three transiting planets to be discovered

Is there a way to rephrase this? It just sounds a bit awkward.

I've given it a shot. What do you think? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature and history

• Kepler-11 is the first discovered exoplanetary system with more than three planets transiting.

Move "discovered" to behind "system"; it will sound a little smoother.

I don't know, "first exoplanetary discovered system" sounds awkward to me. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Planetary system

• their inclinations relative to Earth's line of sight...

Caps.

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• This allows direct measurements of the planets' periods and relative diameters (compared to the host star) via monitoring each planets' transit of the star.

"each planet" is singular, so move the apostrophe in front of the "s". Also, "by" instead of "via" might be easier to read in this case.

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• The system is the most compact known; the orbits of planets b - f would easily fit inside that of Mercury...

It might be better to just say "the orbit of Mercury"

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• ...while the average distance of g from its star is about 20% larger, slightly larger than the orbit of Venus.

Try "greater" instead of larger for both of these.

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• ...while b and c probably contain substantial amounts of ices and/or hydrogen or helium.

To comply with the MoS, try something like "ice, hydrogen, helium, or all three".

 Done with some changes to your suggestion. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That should about do it. Fix those and this is a pass. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 11:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I made one more change to the lead, but it's looking good to me, so it's a pass. Congratulations! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)