Talk:Gliese 581/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) 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with no original information, and therefore doesn't need references unless they are backing up a direct quote.
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph of the Planetary section, can you give the names of the planet when you first introduce them, please. Also, would it be possible to put all of the information on each planet together?  Currently, you go from planet b to planet c to possible planet d back to planet b to planet c to planet d and back again to planet b.  This gets a little confusing...
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Several areas need references:
 * Star section, all of 1st paragraph
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Planetary section, last half of 1st paragraph
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Planetary section, last sentence of section and table
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * why does the table need refs if the data is reffed in the subarticles? Nergaal (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; therefore, you cannot use information from other WP articles, even if sourced, as a source for information in this article. This is mainly as a check against the ever-changing nature of Wikipedia.  If the information is already referenced in another article, it should be easy enough to import the sources to this article. Dana boomer (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to either always use cite templates or never use them.
 * this is definitely not a GA requirement. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's a general WP thing. See Citing sources, where it says, and I quote, "Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent.", when referring to referencing styles. I'm not saying that you have to use cite templates (I prefer them, but it's an opinion thing), I'm just saying you have to be consistent in either using them or not. Dana boomer (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * done? Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref #4 needs a publisher
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please spell out the publisher in ref #10
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that you have the publisher, not just the work. For example, the publisher of ref #11 would be Imaginova Corp, while SPACE.com would be the work.  See also refs 14, 15, 17 etc.
 * space.com is the publisher Nergaal (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Space.com is the work. It is a brand of the publisher.  If you scroll down to the very bottom of the page, you will see that it says copyright Imaginova Corp.  And if you click on the "about us" button (also at the very bottom) you will be taken to a page describing Imaginova and their brands (of which space.com is one).  The website did not publish itself, it was published by a company or an individual, and in this case it was published by Imaginova. Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use the split ref formatting for journal articles (like you have on the Selsis et al. article), you need to do it for all of them. On the other hand, you could just turn the Selsis article into the full in-line ref format like the rest, which would probably be easier.
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How are the last four sites in the references section used as references? If they cite specific parts of the article, they should be put inline - if they are just general information, put them in the external links section, or remove them if they are not applicable.
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * this section should be done. Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:

I have a few concerns with this article, mainly with referencing, so I am putting the article on hold until these issues can be addressed. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything looks good, so I am going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Undiscovered planet in resonant zone?
In reviewing the planetary chart for this system, its obvious that there is a significant gap between the two outer planets that should allow for a fourth planet in between under the Titus-Bode Resonance Law (which essentially says that each planet should be twice as far from its primary as the next inner planet, on average). Is there any research on this issue that anybody can find?75.67.80.68 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)