Talk:Kepler-8/GA1

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

Reviewer:  •F e l i x• T 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Just, again, there is some unneeded repetition of wikilinking and non-necessary wikilinks to geographical articles like there was on Kepler-7. Also the 'Astrometry' section of the box at top is just a little untidy. There are my only two points of improvement for this article so far.  •F e l i x• T 19:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)          Resolved.  •F e l i x• T 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;

(c) it contains no original research.


 * 3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]


 * 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[6]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.