Talk:Gliese 581c/GA1

GA Review[edit]

I am reviewing this article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Good work
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The talk page of the article displays a dispute history. I have some concerns about the stability of this article, so i would put this article on hold for a week or so.

To me it seems over 2 months old. Nergaal (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh for heaven's sake... this is not some kind of conspiracy to misrepresent what we know. ...Icalanise (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)" The last one.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some images of Gliese 581 c on commons, about how Gliese 581 c looks. [1] Any specific reason they are not included?

Artist impressions do not add that much and rarely rely on comprehensive references Nergaal (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"how it looks"??! - this isn't in your back yard man, no one has "seen" this planet, the artistic impressions that have been added here have time and time again been deleted. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Selected media articles" is not part of standard WP:LAYOUT, should be merged with External links. ALSO wikipedia is not a directory of links, so some of the links can be reduced.

That means a revision of the article because there is a lot of unecessary info there that has fueled speculations in the article editing. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I merged them to Further reading with two sub-sections.-84user (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 lines "Age"section is a problem. It "can inhibit the flow of the text". Also, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". (WP:LAYOUT) Can the para be merged.
- I removed the section, it had a deadlink cite and age is not at all certain anyway.-84user (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just chop off the text. leave it there as hidden for future contribuitors to build onto it. Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section need not be removed. Can be merged with a relevant section or expanded a bit.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what age is most similar to. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is predicted that tidal heating" By whom. Add name of scientist and preferably use active voice.

now? Nergaal (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Several astronomers have suggested": weasel word. Add names. There might be others who differ in opinion.

Thanks for that. I like that you experienced editors are insupport of removing the unecessary spectulation, especially from scientists that have opponents. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I renamed it Future observations and rewrote to reflect cites.-84user (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much jargon. Can it be simplified? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you ahve specific examples? Nergaal (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"HD 209458 b " what is it? "the high planetary albedo" "exoplanet" "tidal heating" "tidally locked" "pseudo-synchronization" "Io". For example, when writing about Io, write Jupiter's moon Io. Most non-expert readers would never known what Io is, but would know what Jupiter is.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed these. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: ON HOLD--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted my attempted improvements above (and see Talk:Gliese 581 c/GA1#GA edit attempts)-84user (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gliese 581 orbits-redone-again.png needs a caption, is certainly not self-explanatory. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA PASS.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]