Talk:Upsilon Andromedae d

message: 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 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a [[WP:GA|Good Article]]

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Why are we using an RV minimum mass (3.75 Jupiter masses) as opposed to the astrometrically-derived true mass (10.25 Jupiter masses)? 46.126.76.193 (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass in the infobox 

message: The Periastron and Apastron distances appear to slightly contradict the eccentricity amount given in this article. There is no source linked to a paper for the Semi-major axis, Periastron and Apastron figures. The figures given in this article are 2.54 AU for the Semi-major, 1.88 AU for the Periastron and 3.19 AU for the Apastron. However, when I took the Semi-major axis figure of 2.54 AU and then calculated the Periastron and Apastron from that, using the eccentricity given of 0.299, I got for the Pariastron 2.54*(1-0.299)=1.781 AU and for the Apastron 2.54*(1+0.299)= 3.299 AU. As can be seen, that is different to what is given in this article by about 0.1 AU in each case. Was a mistake made in the calculation for Apastron and Pariastron in this article or by me, was the calculation perhaps done on a different Semi-major axis figure or were the Apastron and Pariastron figures taken from a different paper to the one for eccentricity figure and that's why they don't seem to quite match each other?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.235.166 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Those values were added eight years ago before eccentricity was updated. PlanetStar 06:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital elements 

message: The image in the infobox should not be used as it does not follow the usage guide for the template:
 This template is part of a group of templates that are used to display information about a specific extrasolar planet.
 Images of published planetary properties are preferred where available, especially when they are available from cited publications.
 Artist's conception, regardless of the source, should be avoided.
 Examples of acceptable images include
 * direct images, such as one used for GJ 758 b, in the rare cases where these are available;
 * output of a model that is integral to a cited paper, such as the image used in HD 80606 b;
 * user-generated images that clearly illustrate published properties, such as the size comparisons currently used in GJ 1214 b or Gliese 436 b.
My edits followed these guidelines but were revered by User:MarioProtIV. I'm opening discussion as to why ...
--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like if the discussion was held here, rather then on all of the other pages. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 11:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Planetbox usage 

message: This is an article about an exoplanet, so in that section, the habitability properties of planets should have been written only.
But we see that the moon habitability is written also!
Some parts are copied and pasted from Habitability of natural satellites article.
Also, in Exomoon article it is stated that the existence of exomoons aren't confirmed yet; so speaking about moon habitability in an article about exoplanets doesn't make any sense.
P.S. Sorry if I didn't make links. I am on mobile phone now. Aminabzz (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habitability section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion