Talk:J1407b/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 02:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this in the coming days. Glad to see it has a standalone article. I haven't edited in astronomy topics for at least a month, so bear with me, but I'll try my best. :) E_F⁵ 00:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a cursory glance:

A second paragraph could be added to the lead about its technical aspects, as I'm sure that's what many readers come to see. (This is optional and will not affect the review.)
File:V1400_Cen_J1407b_ALMA.png is in the article twice; in the infobox and in the "Unbound object hypothesis" section. One should be removed, I'd suggest removing the latter so that the OTS visualization is standalone.
Quasi-sandwiching is going on with the "Name" section header, putting a {{clear}} template above should fix that.

More to come tommorow, I haope you had a great Christmas, assuming you celebrate that. E_F⁵ 00:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Sorry for not getting back sooner. The table:[reply]

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

?

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
At the end of the first paragraph in the "Disk properties and potential exomoons" section, the "a" before "Super Saturn" should be changed to "as a". I see no other glaring issues, so that's really the only thing that needs fixes here.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
No sourcing issues. All sources are cited inline, are reliable (the writers seem to be subject experts, so I'll AGF on that) and none are malformed or otherwise unusual. Earwig finds a 9.9% similarity ratio with Astronomy.com, too low to be a flat-out copyright violation.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No issues with the focus of the article nor the detail. As a space-related object, I'd actually expect a lot of numbers, and that's what I see here.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I don't see how you can be non-neutral with a floating ball several million miles away, so no issues here. (Really though, I see no peacock words).
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Besides some vandalism on October 30 of last year, I see no glaring edit wars/other major changes that have recently been made.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The biggest issue I have right now are the placements and amount of images. I am currently on a Microsoft Edge browser, so it may just look different to me, but the "double images" interfere with the layout of the article. I would suggest removing File:V1400CenLightCurve.png and File:Epsilon_Aurigae.jpg that make up the first double-image, as it cuts off the header line for the "Name" section. if you don't want to remove those, then remove File:J1407b_eclipse_animation_Kenworthy_2015.webm as there are too many images in one section and move the double-image down. I would also remove File:Brown_dwarf_OTS_44_with_disc.jpg as I see no source that backs up J1407b looking like that, and/or remove the second File:V1400_Cen_J1407b_ALMA.png as it's already in the infobox.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
See above.

Pinging @Nrco0e:. Since the holidays were recent, I understand taking a Wikibreak, so I'll give seven days for a response. :) E_F⁵ 18:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]