Jump to content

Talk:Megamaser/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguations: Four found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I find taht the article is reasonably well written and accords sufficiently with the MoS and project guidelines.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I assume good faith for off-line sources, article is sufficiently referenced. In passing, I am puzzled by the appearance of edit tags following the journal cites, but this is not of concern in this review.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    the artcile covers the subject sufficiently, without too much detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. 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):
    Licensed, tagged and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I find that the article meets the GA criteria. I enjoyed reading it and have learnt a lot about this branch of astronomy. Listing as GA. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]