Talk:HAT-P-33b

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HAT-P-33b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 12:49, 21 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.	Very good prose, well-written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good lede, good infobox, good captions.
	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.	One question below.
	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.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes it does.
	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.	Besides jitter in the measurements, very stable.
	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.	Images are correctly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well-chosen images, no problems.
	7. Overall assessment.	Once again, well done.

• 1a issue: This sentence has multiple issues. "Additionally, use of the SOPHIE échelle spectrograph at a 1.93m telescope at France's Haute-Provence Observatory were taken of the star provided the possibility that measured radial velocity differences, anomalies that often indicate the presence of a planet, may have been because of background distortion." I don't understand. Use were taken? What provided the possibility? And "may have been because of" would be better as "may have been caused by".
  • I wonder how asleep I was when I wrote this article. :P
• 1a issue: "Using process program called Blendanal..." Should this be "a process program" or "process programs" or something else?
  • Haha, I don't even know what that means. I just nixed the "process" part. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1a nitpick: Two sentences in a row start "It was concluded that..."
  • Fixed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1a nitpick: "...the question of what, other than temperature, plays a role in how inflated planets like the aforementioned three can be as they are." This would sound more encyclopedic is reworded. Perhaps something like "...the question of what factors, besides temperature, contribute to the large radii of these inflated planets."?
  • That sounds much better. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1a question: "However, HAT-P-33 is younger than the Sun..." Isn't the fact that it's larger and hotter than the Sun indicate that it's probably younger? If so, the "However" isn't the best word to use. (If not, then nevermind.)
  • I've nixed the however potion. How does it sound? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Fine now. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1b issue: "...would be the best option." Yes, that's probably true, and it's sourced, but it's not encyclopedic in tone and has potential NPOV issues. I see this comes from page 17 of Hartman's paper. Perhaps it can be worded more neutrally? Something like "If [more data is collected this way], it should lead to [better confirmation]"? If so, it might be better prose to switch the order of, and combine, the last two paragraphs of "Discovery", though that's just a suggestion.
  • Your comment was a bit difficult to understand, but I think I've met what you are asking. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Very good. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1b nitpick: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) says "Do not link to a page that redirects to the page the link is on." So you really shouldn't link HAT-P-33, unless it's going to be its own article.
  • I've stubbed the article for now. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Now that's a stub! – Quadell ^(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• 2a question: Should the "HAT-P-32b and HAT-P-33b" paper be credited to "Hartman et al.", rather than to just Hartman & Bakos?
  • I'm not sure. The citation template just asks for the first and last names of the first two authors. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't actually know the answer to this. I suspect an "et al" format would be better. But it's not going to get in the way of GA status, regardless. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• 6b issue: Images should usually use the default thumbnail size, unless there's a good reason to make them smaller. I think these should be the default (220px).
  • I've expanded them both to that size. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• 6b issue: The caption on the second image does not mention Jupiter, and it's confusing. I would suggest "HAT-P-33b is 1.8 times the size of Jupiter (left), and slightly larger that WASP-17b (right)." But any caption that makes clear what we're seeing and how it relates is fine.
  • Excellent idea. I've done as you've suggested. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• 6b nitpick: Captions should only end in a period if they are complete sentences.
  • This one's no longer relevant. :P --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well it was, but I figure I ought to do something around here. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)