Talk:WASP-24/GA1

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count ) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article today and tomorrow. Please be patient.AstroCog (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article needs significant work to get to GA.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * This is article is too technical, and doesn't provide much context. There needs to be an overview of some basics, such as what a Hot Jupiter is, what SuperWASP is, etc. Because these things are important to understanding the main topic, it's not enough to just link to their respective articles.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Two sources does not a GA make. If these are the only references, then I don't see how this object is notable enough for a wikipedia article. 2b is nay because the exoplanet.eu website is biased to just about any exoplanet data, with little critical selection. Another website, exoplanets.org, is more reliable, as it only include info on confirmed exoplanets, and is maintained by professionals. Use that if possible.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * However, see my comment above for criteria 1b - this article needs expansion of context for readers unfamiliar with astronomy.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I only fail the criteria because the only academic source seems to be from the scientists who are vested in the object and the SuperWASP project. Where are references independent of them?
 * 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):
 * No images whatsoever.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Frankly, I'm surprised that this article was nominated for GA. I am looking at the other GA noms by the nominator and I think they are all premature nominations. This is more a start than anything else. Also, many of these objects, while interesting to astronomers working in this field, are not notable enough for wikipedia articles. Wikipedia cannot possibly be a catalogue of every possible exoplanet or object discovered in sky surveys. If the object has significant coverage multiple journal articles, and especially by the general press, then that would be notable. My suggestion is for User:Starstriker7 to withdraw these GA nominations within the next day or so, otherwise, I will go and fail them with the same comments as above.
 * Frankly, I'm surprised that this article was nominated for GA. I am looking at the other GA noms by the nominator and I think they are all premature nominations. This is more a start than anything else. Also, many of these objects, while interesting to astronomers working in this field, are not notable enough for wikipedia articles. Wikipedia cannot possibly be a catalogue of every possible exoplanet or object discovered in sky surveys. If the object has significant coverage multiple journal articles, and especially by the general press, then that would be notable. My suggestion is for User:Starstriker7 to withdraw these GA nominations within the next day or so, otherwise, I will go and fail them with the same comments as above.