Talk:TOI-1853 b/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: OzmoOzmo (talk · contribs) 02:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Quick fail check

• Not a long way from meeting any one of the good article criteria.
• Using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, the closest match was 7.4% with https://www.space.com/scorching-neptune-size-world-super-massive, and the only match was with the name of the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite.
• No cleanup banners.
• No recent edit warring.
• No previous GA reviews.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article is good, but there are still some issues with clearness, conciseness, and editorializing.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are some issues with clearness and conciseness related to linking in the article. I have boldly fixed the issue in the lead section, but there are still issues. For example, conventional theories of planetary formation and evolution does not make clear which theory it is referring to. There is also an issue with editorializing in the section Hypothesized composition, regarding However, the atmosphere of TOI-1853 b is expected to be thin, so detecting it with JWST will likely prove difficult. The editorializing should be removed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   This article contains editorializing, which is a type of synthesization (see above).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold to let contributors improve the article before failing (see issues above).

Response

Hello OzmoOzmo, I have cleaned out the editorial statements and elaborated on the "conventional" pebble accretion theory in the article. Is there anything else I missed? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, then I would say this is a  Pass.

(To future readers of this review: this is one of my first times reviewing a good article, so if I have made any mistakes, let me know).

Promoting. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 07:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)