Talk:Kepler-9

Kepler-9 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.

Kepler-9 is the main article in the Kepler-9 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 9, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
May 11, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Stellar data

The fact box gives key information that contradicts the discovery paper by Holman and colleagues. Holman et al. provide few details on the star, but they do say that its mass is 1.0 Solar masses and its radius is 1.1 Solar radii. If the mass and radius in the fact box were accurate, then the masses and orbits of the planets would be quite different.

I wonder if the person who inserted the current data mistook Kepler-9 for another star in the Kepler field.Thuvan Dihn (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paper from Torres et al. that appeared on the arXiv today [1] gives 1.07 M_⊙ and 1.02R_⊙ using the same spectroscopic parameters as Holman et al. (T_eff, log g, [Fe/H]) - unfortunately I don't have access to the Holman et al. paper as it is behind the Science paywall. Icalanise (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-377.03

Is KOI-377.03 below the detection capabilities of HIRES or HARPS ? i believe they have similar precision (0.97 m/s) ; and is this happening on HD 10180 b also?. Does anybody know? Quantanew (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kepler-9/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: the link to KOI-377.03 redirects back to this article so, you should de-link KOI-377.03. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot:

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Complies sufficiently, I made one minor copy-edit
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~Ref #1[2] failed verification. The information may be elsewhere on this site.~~
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
As broad as is reasonable given this is a recent discovery.
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):
Suitable rationale and caption
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Just one reference needs fixing. On Hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved all the pointers you've brought up. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, I just couldn't find that on the site, but imagined that it would be there. I am now happy to list this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. :D --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kepler-9. 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:

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) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-9. 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/20100831011606/http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1008/26kepler/ to http://astronomynow.com/news/n1008/26kepler/

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) 00:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]