# Talk:Kepler-5

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CrowzRSA 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

The article has passed. There were a few fixes I had to fix, mainly word choice and and layout. The article is pretty short, and if you ever wish to nominate it for FA, it will need to model after similar FAs. But as is, it meets the GA criteria. CrowzRSA 17:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kepler-5. 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/20110121155432/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-5 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-5
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) 16:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)