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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 23:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• was constructed in 1961, and started observing a selection of variable radio sources in 1961 some way to rephrase so it doesn't repeat the same year?

• Good

• "The 40 foot" → "The 40-foot" for internal consistency
• In the sentence starting It was delivered in December 1961, I'd clarify that it was delivered to the Green Bank Observatory (with a WL) so that information isn't buried further on
• I wouldn't put quotes around "Secondary Science Teachers Institute", as I'm not sure why an organization would have quotes around it

• Good

• References [4] and [14] need an access date

• Image is properly licensed and relevant
• No stability concerns in the revision history
• Earwig score looks good

Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Please feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 16:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver: Thanks for the review! I've addressed those points with this edit - how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks good now, happy to pass! — GhostRiver 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]