# Talk:Kepler-40b

This review is transcluded from Talk:KOI-428b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Well written and accords sufficiently with MoS.
I think that the phrase KOI-428b is a Hot Jupiter discovered in the orbit of the star KOI-428, would be better as KOI-428b is a Hot Jupiter planet discovered in the orbit of the star KOI-428,
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References appear to check out, I note that the PDF ref #1[1] is extremely slow to download, it might be good to mention this.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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 used.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

"The planet is also nearly thirteen times hotter than Jupiter and orbits five times closer to its star than Mercury does to the Sun." I'm OK with "five times farther," but I have trouble with using the term "five times closer" to describe a fraction of a distance. Would it be simpler to state that [KOI-428b] orbits its sun at 1/5 the distance that Mercury orbits the Sun?Nei1 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
If "five times farther" is okay, then so is "five times closer". "Closer" means "at a smaller distance", so it is simply okay as long as the reference point is clearly mentioned. Here, that it is the case (aside from the slightly weird English, which I've fixed). --JorisvS (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)