Talk:WASP-44b/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:WASP-44b/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:WASP-44b/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

class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"

valign="top" ! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute ! | Review Comment

valign="top" | | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}: | {{GATable/item|1a|+| Good prose. }} {{GATable/item|1b|+| MoS followed. }}

valign="top" | | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}: | {{GATable/item|2a|+| References section is fine. }} {{GATable/item|2b|+| All the sources that exist are here. }} {{GATable/item|2c|+| The article is mercifully devoid of speculation about what lifeforms may be waiting there. 30px }}

valign="top" | | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}: | {{GATable/item|3a|+| As complete as possible. }} {{GATable/item|3b|+| Not a problem }} {{GATable/item|4|+| Not a problem. }} {{GATable/item|5|+| Not a problem. }}

valign="top" | | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}: | {{GATable/item|6a|+| Free, legit, and tagged. }} {{GATable/item|6b|+| Image is bad-ass. (Caption is fine.) }} {{GATable/item|7|+| Glad to pass this GA nom. }}

• 1a: Which is better? "Jupiter-size planet" or "Jupiter-sized planet"? ("You want me to Jupiter-size that for just thirty-five cents more?)
• Haha. XD All fixed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1a: In the lede, the orbital period sentence seem to split up a couple of sentences about the planets discovery. Would in be better elsewhere in the lede?
• I've done plenty of re-arranging and a small add. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1a: "searched the night sky for transits" is a bit lingo-ish. It's better to explain, which will probably involve splitting the sentence.
• All set to go. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1a: "This notice came about" is a little odd. "This was discovered", maybe?
• "This was discovered" didn't seem to fit quite right, so I tried something different. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1a: I don't know what "the most honest solution" means.
• I gave a clarification a shot. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• 1b: See Talk:WASP-44/GA1 for discussion about the navbox.

• 1b: The category "Hot Jupiters" is in the category "Gas Giants". Is there some reason this article should have both categories? If not, just keep the "Hot Jupiters" one. Similarly, should a planet be in the "Cetus constellation" category?
• Well, it is in the Cetus constellation, so I'd say it should. I'll nix the Gas giant category momentarily.
• 2b: There's an accuracy tag in the "Other designations" section of the infobox, and discussion on the talk page about it.
• All dealt with. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• 6b: You know me -- I like pictures. They're pretty.
• And, in this case, big and metal and shiny also! :D --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Okay, that's the coolest one yet, for real. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)