Talk:Kepler-9c/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My way of reviewing WP:GAN's is to read through the article once and then go through it again in more detail, starting at the first section going through to the end and then reviewing the WP:Lead last.

The first statement that caught my eye was in the WP:Lead: "During the time it was observed by the spacecraft, the planet's orbit, which lasts on average approximately 38 days, shortened by 39 minutes every "year" because of this effect." and I flagged that as a possible "grammar problem". Was Kepler-9c watched for one year, or should it have read "...shortened by an average of 39 minutes per year because of this effect"?

I've now decided that the sentence contains a "clever play" on words, its not an (earth) year of 365.25 days, its the time taken to orbit Kepler-9 (a "year"). I will award GA status once this point is properly addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done It has been addressed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 17:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Its now a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A short but well referenced article on Kepler-9c.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

   Yes, but see comments above.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold, its a good article and will be a Good Article once the WP:Lead has been addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting and readable article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)