Talk:Megamaser/GA1

GA Review

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

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)