Good articleHIP 13044 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
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2011Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

The following event has concluded. Please do not modify this page. Comments should be made on the talk page.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:HIP 13044/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC) A review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose quality: Mostly clear. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. References to sources: B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?more needed A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Overall: Pass or Fail: ON HOLD:[reply]

Thanks for the review!
As for your comment, I don't think images are a problem. They aren't required by the GA criteria. I will, however, add a picture of its planet in the Planetary System section. --Starstriker7(Talk) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, you can use templates like Template:GAList or Template:GAList2 when reviewing. I also suggest you try to build up an article on your own and nominate it for GA, so you can get a better feel for how to review. It definitely helped me when I did so. --Starstriker7(Talk) 16:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you for your recommendations and the final decision:Pass--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens again[edit]

This time it is more clear-cut. Yes, there are examples of "horizontal-branch", but I went back though four years of published peer-reviewed papers and only about 2% of them use a dash. Going back further it seems to be more common, but still in the minority. In common usage, the hyphen is very rare. UK/US style differences in the use of hyphenated adjectives? Is this a hyphenated adjective? Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must I really tell you again that that is a hyphen, not a dash? And again, this is not common usage vs. uncommon usage, but an instance of logic: The term is "horizontal branch" (i.e. without a hyphen). When this term is used to modify a noun (i.e. is used as an adjective), e.g. "star", i.e. logically '[horizontal branch] star', this must be written "horizontal-branch star" because otherwise it would indicate 'horizontal [branch star]'. --JorisvS (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No planet[edit]

According to this paper, this star has no planet. Looks like this page needs updating --Artman40 (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that the article HIP 13044 b be merged into this article. There is no evidence that this planet exists (see the Jones & Jenkins 2014 reference in this article), so it does not make sense to have a long detailed discussion of a non-existent object. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Template:HIP_13044 should be deleted. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Categories