Talk:MOA-2009-BLG-387L/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 19:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Starstriker7

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is again excellent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good lede. All MoS standards followed.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Every possible reference (both of them) are suitably credited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sourcing is great. No plagiarism.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	As broad as possible.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Definitely not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not particularly controversial.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are free and valid.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good captions, relevant images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Wonderful. Passes with flying M-type-spectrum colors.

Initial comments

At first, I was hesitant to review this nomination because the star has so little notability. It will never become an article as full as Proxima Centauri or Tau Ceti, for instance. It is only important because of the planet it hosts, and there is a strong case to be made that this article should be merged into MOA-2009-BLG-387Lb (the planet). On the other hand, this article really is so well written that it is certainly the best resource on the Internet (and, I suspect, anywhere) on the history and characteristics of the star. Even the "Observational history" section is sufficiently different from the planet's "Discovery" section, properly emphasizing each article's subject. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy would know better whether a merge is appropriate or not, but this article's quality is such that if it should exist as a separate article, this is the article it should be. (And if they should merge, it might as well be the merger of two GAs, which I think would be unprecedented.)

Questions and comments

• The articles on stars that are "Featured" include Celestial coordinate system measures. Are these available for this star? Similarly, is it possible that we could showing a map of Sagittarius with an accurate text description of where the star is, similar to the way the Cygnus X-1 article does?
  • I'm not sure how to find this out. I'll give it a shot in a little bit... --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I've worked this one out. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that more data can be filled in the Starbox. Distance and spectral type seem to be known... how about parallax?
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you clarify? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The Tau Ceti article has a {{starbox}} with a lot more data in it, for obvious reasons. Some stats, like "surface gravity" are simply not available for this star. But since this article is in Category:Type-M stars, I assume the "spectral type" is known, and could be in the starbox. The article text gives an estimate and confidence interval for distance, and that could also go in the starbox. I don't know about other stats--perhaps parallax is meaningless here--but I just want to make sure the starbox is as full as reasonably possible. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Ahh, I see. :)
      • So, I've added everything you've noted, and I've taken a second read-through of the references. I don't think it can be beefed-up further, simply because the way the planet was discovered pretty much forfeits our ability to find the majority of the star's characteristics. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 13:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps an image of the MOA dome would be appropriate?
  • Many telescopes were used to observe this planet, and I didn't see that dome specifically mentioned. I added a picture of VLT instead. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • A better idea. Great! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Again the lede doesn't need citations. (Good lede, by the way.)
  •  Done This has been fixed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have taken on this review, even despite its murky standing on notability. I feel that the community will decide that this article is one to be merged, but I will hope that they see the value in this article as you have. I can hope; right now, I suppose that is the best I have. :P I've addressed all but one of your comments, which wasn't totally clear to me (I am not quite sure how parallax is directly applicable to what can be said about the star; it is very, very, very far away). Once again, thanks for taking on this review. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• All issues are now resolved. Congratulations! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)