Talk:AMiBA/GA1

GA Review

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

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.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   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)