Talk:WASP-44b/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Quadell in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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.
  • 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.
  • 6b: You know me -- I like pictures. They're pretty.