Talk:Kepler-6

Kepler-6 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 26, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Astronomy: Astronomical objects GA‑class Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-6/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Lord Roem (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick first thing - add a bit more to the lead and more to the characteristics section. Maybe explain any unique qualities. Also, write a bit more on the end result of the Kepler mission. Was it successful? Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start, there are a couple things I should clarify. The first thing is that the Kepler Mission is not yet complete; Kepler-6 was only one of many finds it has made. The second thing is that little or nothing unique has been found yet of the star other than the fact that it has a planet in its orbit; the star has received no exclusive press coverage and was not emphasized at the AAS meeting where its discovery was announced, at least to my knowledge. I'm not sure there is anything left to add in that section as compared to other stars.

I'll take a look at the lead as soon as I can, though. Thank you for taking up this review. :)

Thanks, --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered that I could recomb the Kepler website for more data. Perhaps I'll be able to expand the Characteristics section after all. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 17:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no further issues. Promoted! Lord Roem (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-6. 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/20110121151008/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-6 to http://www.exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-6

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)[reply]