Talk:55 Cancri f/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and therefore should not contain original information, which means it doesn't need references for anything other than backing up direct quotes.
 * The first sentence of the Orbit and mass section is "55 Cancri f is located about 0.781 AU away from the star which takes 260 days to complete." Is there something missing from this sentence?  It takes 260 days to complete what?  (I'm assuming its orbit around Cancri, but other readers may not realize this.)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The last half of the discovery section needs a reference.
 * As does the last half of the second paragraph of the Orbit and mass section.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall, a nice article, very well written. I have a couple of comments/questions about the prose, MOS and referencing, and so I am putting this article on hold so they can be resolved. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe all the comments have been solved. Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a quick comment, the first sentence states that it is "approximately 41 light-years away". It seems to me that it should be clarified that this is "41 light-years away from Earth". GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oy, good catch! I've gone ahead and added this myself. Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)