This is a 2006 FA that hasn't been kept up to date with changing standards. Here were the issues I posted on the talk page, which are still relevant:
References needed banner in Spectroscopic binaries section
There is quite a bit of other unreferenced information. See, for example, the third paragraph of Eclipsing binaries, the second and fourth paragraphs of Astrometric binaries, the second and third paragraphs of Configuration of the system, much of the Astrophysics section and its subsections, etc. These are just examples, there are other areas, too.
Reference formatting needs some work. Web references need access dates. Books need page numbers (see, for example, the Nigel Henbest book). Consistency should be checked (see, for example, refs 5 and 6). Are page numbers for books given first or later in the reference? These are just examples, and a full check is needed for consistency, completeness, and reliability.
The notification of work needed on the talk page brought no response. Dana boomer (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, agree this needs work. Referencing is sparse and layout strikes me as a bit haphazard on first look. Problem is, it will have some technical segments that need someone who knows the topic material well. I like astronomy but my physics is extremely rusty.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)