Talk:47 Ursae Majoris

47 Ursae Majoris has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 23, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 18, 2008	Good topic candidate	Promoted
March 2, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
August 11, 2014	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Good article

This is a Good Article

After review, I've determined that this article meets the qualifications for GA status. It is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive. I'm "Mass Passing" this article along with 2 related articles. The entire list is below. If new developments arise that would effect the references or comprehensiveness of this article, it may affect the others as well.

These articles are good examples of well written articles on a short subject. They represent a comprehensive view of a relatively new observation, in a concise manner. Future additions could include images such as diagrams comparing planetary size / orbital distances, etc. If you have any questions on my rationale for promotion, please leave a message on my talk page. Phidauex 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary System

I find the following sentences difficult to understand:

"Using this model of this planetary system found out it is 100,000 times more likely to have three planets than two planets."

and

"It would be the longest-period planet discovered by radial velocity method, although longer-period planets only priorly been discovered by direct imaging and pulsar timing."

If I have understood them correctly, would they not be better expressed as:

"Using this model, the planetary system is 100,000 times more likely to have three planets than two planets."

and

"It would be the longest-period planet discovered by radial velocity method, although longer-period planets have previously been discovered by direct imaging and pulsar timing." ? Dawright12 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit diagram

I have created an orbit diagram for this system based on the Wittenmyer paper (47 UMa c at 7.73 AU), however since the diagram is now hosted on Wikimedia Commons, I am currently unable to upload it for the next 4 days (due to restrictions in place on modifying images with new accounts). Chaos syndrome 13:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed

Just read 47 Ursae Majoris to be renamed Chalawan, after an extinct crocodylian found in Thailand, and named after a mythical crocodile king; two of the exoplanets will be named after his human wives, Thapao Thong and her sister Taphao Kaew. [www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/879126-star-to-be-named-after-kinky-crocodile-king-from-thai-folklore/ Star to be named after kinky crocodile king from Thai folklore By Coconuts Bangkok] —Pawyilee (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ages - orders of magnitude

Why does this article refer to the star's age in multiples of millions of years? It's technically correct, but it's easy to misread it and underestimate the orders of magnitude being discussed, since most astronomy articles on Wikipedia use gigayears instead (e.g. 8.7 Gyr rather than 8,700 million years). Is there a reason for this? --203.57.211.237 (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 47 Ursae Majoris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017112415/http://exoplanets.org/stars.shtml to http://exoplanets.org/stars.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]