Talk:Megamaser/GA1

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

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. 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * the artcile covers the subject sufficiently, without too much detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 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):
 * Licensed, tagged and captioned.
 * 1) 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)