Talk:AMiBA/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, with no original information, and so no sources. In this article, I would recommend moving all of the information on the contributors to a new section, perhaps named "Contributors", with a brief summary sentence in the lead, something along the lines of "with participation from several other leading universities and institutes."  I would then add a couple more sentences to the lead that summarize the design and construction history of the telescope.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

A very nice article. I just have a couple of comments regarding the lead and layout of the article, so I am putting it on hold to allow you time to address this. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I am passing this article to GA status. Thanks for the quick response, and nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)