1a issue: This sentence has multiple issues. "Additionally, use of the SOPHIE échelle spectrograph at a 1.93m telescope at France's Haute-Provence Observatory were taken of the star provided the possibility that measured radial velocity differences, anomalies that often indicate the presence of a planet, may have been because of background distortion." I don't understand. Use were taken? What provided the possibility? And "may have been because of" would be better as "may have been caused by".
I wonder how asleep I was when I wrote this article. :P
1a issue: "Using process program called Blendanal..." Should this be "a process program" or "process programs" or something else?
Haha, I don't even know what that means. I just nixed the "process" part. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1a nitpick: Two sentences in a row start "It was concluded that..."
1a nitpick: "...the question of what, other than temperature, plays a role in how inflated planets like the aforementioned three can be as they are." This would sound more encyclopedic is reworded. Perhaps something like "...the question of what factors, besides temperature, contribute to the large radii of these inflated planets."?
1a question: "However, HAT-P-33 is younger than the Sun..." Isn't the fact that it's larger and hotter than the Sun indicate that it's probably younger? If so, the "However" isn't the best word to use. (If not, then nevermind.)
I've nixed the however potion. How does it sound? --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1b issue: "...would be the best option." Yes, that's probably true, and it's sourced, but it's not encyclopedic in tone and has potential NPOV issues. I see this comes from page 17 of Hartman's paper. Perhaps it can be worded more neutrally? Something like "If [more data is collected this way], it should lead to [better confirmation]"? If so, it might be better prose to switch the order of, and combine, the last two paragraphs of "Discovery", though that's just a suggestion.
Your comment was a bit difficult to understand, but I think I've met what you are asking. How does it look? --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've stubbed the article for now. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that's a stub! – Quadell(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
2a question: Should the "HAT-P-32b and HAT-P-33b" paper be credited to "Hartman et al.", rather than to just Hartman & Bakos?
I'm not sure. The citation template just asks for the first and last names of the first two authors. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't actually know the answer to this. I suspect an "et al" format would be better. But it's not going to get in the way of GA status, regardless. – Quadell(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
6b issue: Images should usually use the default thumbnail size, unless there's a good reason to make them smaller. I think these should be the default (220px).
I've expanded them both to that size. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
6b issue: The caption on the second image does not mention Jupiter, and it's confusing. I would suggest "HAT-P-33b is 1.8 times the size of Jupiter (left), and slightly larger that WASP-17b (right)." But any caption that makes clear what we're seeing and how it relates is fine.
Excellent idea. I've done as you've suggested. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
6b nitpick: Captions should only end in a period if they are complete sentences.
This one's no longer relevant. :P --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Well it was, but I figure I ought to do something around here. – Quadell(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)