# Talk:16 Cygni Bb

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 9 others. 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.

55 Cancri b
55 Cancri c
55 Cancri d
55 Cancri e
16 Cygni
16 Cygni Bb
Upsilon Andromedae
Upsilon Andromedae b
Upsilon Andromedae c
Upsilon Andromedae d
Keep up the good work. These articles are ideal "good articles". They can't be FA, because there is no way for them to get long enough, but they are as comprehensive and complete as possible, and represent a good effort on the part of the editors. Feel free to message me if you have any questions about my rationale. Phidauex 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 though it is unclear whether such moons could actually form.[6]
I will remove this claim, for it makes no sense, the abstract that is linked says ~10-4 of the size of their host planet, so the size of the moon that could form scales with the size of the planet, and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v385/n6613/abs/385234a0.html that specifically speaks of this system, says >0.12 earth size is enough for a substantial enough an atmosphere sustained longterm, and the article claims it could be as much as 14 times as large as jupiter. well, a moon only 5 times as large as Jupiters Ganymede is hence large enough, and depending on how large that gas giant really is it could be allmost 3 times larger than that minimum size, so theres nothing in the reference given that raises doubt if such a moon could form there or not.--89.172.84.10 09:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article as part of the GA Sweeps task force. I believe that this article needs some edits to retain GA status: 

The "Discovery" section appears to be entirely unsourced.
The first sentence in 'physical characteristics' is unreferenced.
"worthless for HD 192263 b, and for 55 Cancri c and upsilon Andromedae d they contradicted measured inclinations of other planets in their systems." I think that this needs a cite also.
I'm putting this 'on hold' for the week to allow my concerns to be cleared up. naerii 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed my comment about other systems because, they were my comments, and I see how I was unintentionally sabotaging this article. So, sorry about that.
I threw in the first link I found on exoplanet.eu to handle Discovery.
I dispute that the first sentence in physical characteristics needs a reference. All it does is complain that so much about this planet can't be known.
On the other hand, maybe it does need a reference. I don't know. Don't really care to be honest. This planet is interesting for its orbital dynamics (alongside others); but for properties, it's a lost cause. But maybe someone else who is more invested in this thing can offer more. --Zimriel (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine now to me, thanks :) I left this longer than I intended to in the hopes that someone would come along and look at it. (For any future reviewers) IMO this meets all the criteria as it is comprehensive; there is barely information available about this planet. This is the best possible article we could have on the topic, given the small scope and lack of sources. naerii 06:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 16 Cygni Bb. 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/20160402233353/http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=bibcode&Itemid=129&bibcode=2007A&A...474..653VFUL to http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=bibcode&Itemid=129&bibcode=2007A%26A...474..653VFUL
Corrected formatting/usage for http://media4.obspm.fr/exoplanets/base/etoile.php?nom=16%20Cyg%20B
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) 06:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 16 Cygni Bb. 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/20080518004546/http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/16cyg.html to http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/16cyg.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://media4.obspm.fr/exoplanets/base/etoile.php?nom=16+Cyg+B
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) 12:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)