Good articleUniverse has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 10, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 10, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 1, 2011Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 29, 2015Good article nomineeListed
March 7, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of August 29, 2015.
Current status: Good article

GAR

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Kept per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA from 2015 that have multiple problems. I posted this comments 20 days ago, but it seems that nobody is willing to update that article and thus GAR is required.

The article is not bad, but currently lacks citations is several sections. Chronology and the Big Bang is mostly unsourced, with cn and clarification needed tags. Physical properties uses really strange source ("Antimatter". Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council", see citation 44). Age and expansion ends with a strange sentence This acceleration does not, however, imply that the Hubble parameter is currently increasing; see deceleration parameter for details. Spacetime has unsourced sentences. Support of life is just a few sentences with really strange sourcing: "Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims." (see citation 78). Halfs of Dark energy and Ordinary matter are unsourced. Same for Hadrons.

Historical conceptions are also problematic. Half is unsourced, and the sourced parts are often built on really old sources: see "Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962)" (citation 152), citation 13 lacks year and page, cit 150 lacks year. Astronomical concepts is either unsourced or sourced to "Aristotle; Forster, E. S.; Dobson, J. F. (1914)"; the article abruptly ends with The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917, when Albert Einstein first applied his general theory of relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the universe. with nothing about modern era.

There is also a question on talk page about the audio version being outdated (13 June 2012 (!)) - maybe it should simply be removed? Artem.G (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think a public-outreach website from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council is a decent source for a general statement like that, all things told. It would be nice to have a citation that isn't an archived copy of a web page, and we can swap it out, but I wouldn't stress over it. The Index to Creationist Claims is probably also OK for mainstream scientific responses to pseudoscientific nonsense, and thus for short summaries of mainstream positions on out-there speculation.
In "Ordinary matter", the stuff about four familiar phases plus BECs and such is standard, and a decent college textbook would be a reasonable source. I will try to dig up the Allday book which is cited in the "Hadrons" section; it might cover that whole paragraph already. XOR'easter (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
It occurs to me that we recently put Planet and Solar system through successful FA reviews, and the historical material in those could also be applicable here. It took a long time for the Universe to be recognized as a much bigger thing than the solar system, after all. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I removed the last remaining cn from the Chronology section after adding links to the flatness and horizon problems, which were being alluded to, but unclearly. These are quite complicated ideas and so best not to attempt to summarise in a sentence or two. PaddyLeahy (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, it's in better shape now. I'll leave it for someone else to decide whether it is "Good". XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"God (artwork)" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  The redirect God (artwork) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 § God (artwork) until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Universe (artwork)" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  The redirect Universe (artwork) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28 § Universe (artwork) until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  NODES
HOME 1
Idea 1
idea 1
languages 2
Note 1
os 22
text 3
visual 1
web 2