- This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-9d/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Well written, I made a few minor copy-edits
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Sources check out, RS, no OR
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- AS much as is known at present about an object 650 parsecs away.
- 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):
- None used, though images such as those in 9b & 9c would be good. Not a GA criteria.
- OK, good to go -careful taht you don't run out of exoplanets! :-) Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)