 | Kepler-10 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit. | ||||||||||||
 | Kepler-10 is the main article in the Kepler-10 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the KOI-72.02 page were merged into Kepler-10. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I propose to merge KOI-72.02 into this page. The current consensus suggests that unconfirmed planet candidates are not sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles, (e.g. the result of the deletion discussion for the article KOI 701.03 and previous consensus at WP:ASTRO). Icalanise (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
|
|
| Reviewing |
|
|
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative article at GA-level. Pyrotec (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kepler-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With distance 564 ly from us, I think Kepler-10 still belong to Orion Arm. Newone (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article says it is 187 parsecs/608 light years away in the first sentence and in the astrometry sidebar, but further down the article, it says:
Kepler-10 is located at a distance of 173 (± 27) parsecs from the Earth, which equates to approximately 564 light years.
I assume the first figure is more recent, but can someone confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.83.120.173 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
