# Talk:40-foot radio telescope

Hi @Mike Peel: just wanted to check on the name of this article, as it doesn't seem quite correct to me. We've titled it as "40 Foot Telescope", in title case, implying that this is a proper name. But as far as I can tell from many of the article's own sources, including [3][4][5][6], that name is not usually capitalised in that way. As such, I'm not sure that differentiating it from the other 40-foot telescope using capitalisation is really valid. I'd like to move this article to something like 40-foot telescope (Green Bank Observatory) or similar, but wanted to get your input first, particularly as it is due to run at DYK in a couple of days. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Happy for it to be renamed. Perhaps 40-foot radio telescope might work, and be shorter than including the full observatory name? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: excellent suggestion, and  Done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:40-foot radio telescope/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 23:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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.


### Infobox and lede
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?


### Specifications
Good


### History
"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


### Science
Good


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


### General comments
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)

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