75%.  Awesome   I was a lot happier with this years TMA03 than the previous years, even though I rewrote quite a lot at the last minute to focus on being a literary review, rather than an overview of the subject.

Review of feedback from TMA03:

Abstract – good, but I need to explain more to non-astronomy people.  This should be fine, but of course it’s hard to do that when all you’re reading is hardcore science papers

Contents – good.

Introduction – good, but omitted discussion of the objectives of the paper.

Literature review – good.  “In the final ECA report be sure to keep the ‘critical’ aspects of your analysis (‘critical’ in the sense of comparing/contrasting different results and theories, discussing any contested ideas or controversial issues, evaluating different perspectives/proposals etc.) to the fore.”

All in all, a good result from TMA03.  I need to do more research to find more contentious issues, so I can focus the review section a bit more.  That should be easy to do – previously I was ignoring these to try to get a better picture of the established consensus.

Obviously, I’m focused on the gravitational lensing aspects of this, so this is where more research comes in.