![]() | Kepler-14b 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The semi-major axis of 8.213 AU cannot be correct for a period of ~6.8 days. The paper refers to this as Scaled semimajor axis a/R and is not in AUs. I cannot find a ref to the true semi-major axis and leave it to someone more knowledgeable to correct it. 66.27.66.8 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On checking the reference given for the alternative designations, I find only the list of alternative designations for the star. Clicking through to the page for the planet gives only the Kepler-14b designation [1]. Can we have a reference which shows these designations in usage for the planet? My expectation is that the only alternative designation would be a KOI identifier. Icalanise (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
|
Reviewer: – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: User:Starstriker7 (orhis sidekick)
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. | All prose issues have been resolved. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Organization is good, MoS is 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. | Reference section is good. |
![]() |
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). | Referencing is excellent |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | None that I can see. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes, as much as is available |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problems. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problem. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No 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. | The image checks out. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Image is relevant, and the caption is good. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Congrats on another GA. |
{{main}}
template to a non-existing article. Would you want to go ahead and create the Kepler-14 article? (Or are you putting off the DYK countdown clock?) There are a lot of redlinks. HIRES is mentioned at the W. M. Keck Observatory article, and IRAC is mentioned at Spitzer Space Telescope... should these instruments have their own articles? If so, that's fine, but if not then they shouldn't be links.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]