Talk:HD 40307 b/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Please format the first ref (simbad entry) in a cite template like the rest of the references.

    Done --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

   • The end of the first paragraph of the Characteristics section needs a ref.

   This might take a while. I adapted this part from the 55 Cancri planets, and those did not have references for that specific point. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

   Books, encyclopediae, and websites alike, there are no clear citations I can use outside the 55 Cancri one, which I believe I will have to pay for. What's your suggested course of action? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand what you mean by "pay for"? If it's a journal article that you need to have a subscription for and you know the needed information is in there, then just add the info as if you got it out of a print version, or link to the abstract that the site provides and note in the reference that it's a subscription only site. Dana boomer (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

There are just a couple of issues with references, so I am putting the article on hold. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it all looks good, so I'm passing the article. Thanks for your work on these three articles! Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)