Talk:Megamaser/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- 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.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- the artcile covers the subject sufficiently, without too much detail.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Licensed, tagged and captioned.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- 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)
- Pass/Fail: