Talk:Kepler-7

Kepler-7 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 reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 2, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: •Felix• ^T 20:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just put the criteria down, I am currently in the process of reviewing. •Felix• ^T 20:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Ok here: *“Kepler-7 is named the way it is because it was the home to the seventh planetary system discovered by..” can be made a little clearer and more straighforward. Suggestion “Kepler-7 received its name because it is the home to the seventh planetary system discovered by…”

Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*”In other words, the star is about 35% more massive than the Sun and 84% wider.” While it is not a major issue, can something else be substituted for ‘in other words’, perhaps this sentence could be combined with the one preceding it with a word like ‘meaning that’ or something along those lines. Also does ‘more massive’ mean the same in this context as ‘larger’? Is so than that might make it look a little cleaner. Lastly, the ‘84% wider’ should be somewhere before what it is describing, the Sun. If this a little confusing here is a sample sentence, “… about 35% larger and 84% wider than the Sun”

More massive and larger are different; for example, an iron dumbbell would be more massive than a piece of plastic of the same shape and size. I've addressed your two other comments, though. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. •Felix• ^T 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Also several wikilinks are repeated twice and do not need to be, the three I found are Earth, Sun, and Kepler Mission.

I delinked those three and NASA. I'll keep looking for more. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Also per the Manual of Style, names of major geographical locations should not be wikilinked, in this article there are some for places like Hawaii, Texas, Arizona, etc.

Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[6]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

~~Additional Note - A Stub cannot be a good article, this issue must be resolved before the nomination process can move forward.~~

If you meant removing the stub tag, then it has been taken off. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like all these have been fixed up and one final look over the article I just made shows everything seems good. I am awarding Kepler-7 good article status. Good work Starstriker7 and all other editors who contributed to this article. •Felix• ^T 23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How far away?

Approximately how far away from the earth is this star? I would expect a GA to address this typical question. -Wormcast (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for the same thing and I agree, nowhere in the article does it mention the distance from the solar system. I can't find it anywhere else either. If the distance is known exactly, then is there an approximate estimate? DiamondLattice (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Wormcast (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-7. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121150542/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-7 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-7

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]