Talk:WASP-44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article WASP-44 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
August 27, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon WASP-44 is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:WASP-44/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:Quadell (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Nomitator: User:Starstriker7

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is good.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. MoS followed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. References section is fine.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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. Sourcing is great.
2c. it contains no original research. Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Not a problem.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Not a problem.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Not a problem
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Not a problem
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Image is free and tagged.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Image is pretty and well-placed
7. Overall assessment. Happy to pass this GA nomination.
  • misc: The infobox incorrectly refers to WASP-24. Can you do a quick check on the other stats, to make sure they're correct?
    • All fixed up. I wonder what I was thinking... :P --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 1a: "were present along WASP-45b and WASP-46b"... Do you mean "were presented along with..."?
    • Yes I did. This has also been fixed. --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 1a: "...hoping to find validity in how Hot Jupiters are assumed to have circular orbits if no evidence suggests otherwise". This is confusing to me. I think you're saying that the planets were first described in this paper, and the paper had a secondary goal of calling into question a certain assumption, but it needs to be more clear. Similarly the last sentence-paragraph of "Observational history" is confusing to me. It's a long and winding road. I like the way WASP-44b puts it in the last paragraph of "Discovery" (except for an issue with "the most honest solution", mentioned in that GA nom review).
    • I had some issues rephrasing it, but I gave it my best shot. What do you think? --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 1b: This article has a table on the WASP-44 system, and also has a navbox template for the system. None of the other GAs on stars or extrasolar planets have this sort of navbox, and I wonder whether it's a good idea. It looks odd, having two similar boxes that say the same thing. I see that the WASP-44b article has this box as well, where it's not as out-of-place, but again, it doesn't provide any new information or links. It seems to me that either all GAs on extrasolar planets and their stars should have navboxes like this, or only ones with multiple planets, or none at all. And I'm personally leaning toward none, though I could be convinced otherwise.
    • The reason for the inconsistency is probably because I stopped making star articles after a while. If you look, you can find the templates at the bottom of every Kepler star (and KOI-428). Other than the ones I've created, it looks like it only really covers multiple planet systems, which is understandable. I think that that makes the most sense, as you are correct; these templates are extraneous and, for the most part, hidden. I'm not sure which process should be taken to delete them, however. :P --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, you or I could list them at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. I'm not sure what all templates should be listed though... – Quadell (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I've put the ones I'm aware of up at TfD, including pretty much any template involving a star system with one known planet. Until then, I'll remove the navboxes from WASP-44 and WASP-44b for the sake of the GA process (I'll leave the others there until a decision is made). --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 2b: The WASP-44b article references the ArXiv preprint for the paper's publication and date. Shouldn't this do so as well?
  • 3a: The "Planetary system" section is a little briefer and less informative than similar sections in other GAs on stars. C.f. 16 Cygni and Kepler-4.
    • I've slightly beefed it up. Does it look good? --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 3a: The WASP-44b lists "spectral type" in the infobox. This ought to as well.
  • 3a: The "characteristics" section is fairly short. Though you already say the star is "much like the Sun", would it be appropriate to mention in a separate sentence that the star's mass and size are nearly the same as the suns? Or that it's much younger? Or that the confidence intervals for many characteristics are quite tight, leading astronomers to be fairly certain of blah blah blah?
    • I don't think I wrote the "much like the Sun" part clearly; I think that I put that in because both WASP-44 and the Sun are G-type stars. I've adjusted that accordingly.
  • 3a: The WASP-44b article states "Based on its spectrum, WASP-44 is not active in its chromosphere (outer layer). The star was also not found to demonstrate a high rate of rotation." It should be in this article too.
  • 6b: You know me -- I like pictures. They're pretty.
    • They are rather pretty. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a great one! – Quadell (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I've addressed most of your comments. Forgive me for the break, but I'll be back in a bit to resolve the last ones. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Everything looks great besides that one though.Quadell (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)