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.