Talk:HIP 13044 b/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

Photometry links to a disambiguation page currently; have it link to the astronomy one.
- Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 18:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs #1 and 3 need publishers listed
- Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 18:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this on hold and will pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a requirement for GA status, but I was just curious why The planet's discovery was announced on November 18, 2010. has seven cites. Is it controversial AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those references were just there before I got there. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seem a little bit like overkill. Maybe you would consider trimming them to one or two? I see one is to Science and another is to Scientific America. As I said above, this is not a requirement so don't feel you have to. AIRcorn (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed that some of those were also for the preceding sentence, though perhaps that's not the case. Ideally seven are not needed and it can be trimmed, but nonetheless I'm passing it since that's not something that would keep it from being a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]