Talk:2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 11:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination is premature
This article is about a very recent result in physics, one which I think has not even been fully discussed yet by professional physicists in the peer reviewed literature. I'm not sure this subject has had enough time to gestate with professional physicists to have the complete and broad coverage it will need for a GA. Additionally:
 * Article's lead is too short.
 * No images.
 * Article is not stable. As of yesterday, there was active editing with substantial edits. The talk page reveals several arguments about content, and there is an outstanding merge tag on the article. Totally unacceptable for a GA nominee.
 * There is at least one reference which is a paper posted to arxiv.org, but which doesn't appear to have been accepted for publication yet.

The main thing holding this GAN back is stability. It just isn't there. I will quick fail this nomination unless the article's main contributors can provide a satisfactory argument that they will work this article into stable condition within seven days. Otherwise, I think you just need to be patient, keeping working, and wait on the GAN. AstroCog (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Can I comment here?) The article looked good when I nominated it, but I agree it has destabilized since. I don't mind if it is de-nominated.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that in the edit history. You can remove the nomination yourself, by taking out the GA tag in the discussion section. The GA bot will automatically take care of the GAN page. When the article is stable, and the other issues resolved, you can find me again, and I would be happy to give a GA review. AstroCog (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that additional experimental results will be published by OPERA and MINOS in the next months, and this might change the shape of this article again, when those events occur. Hopefully, also some preprints will be accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals in the future. --D.H (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see this article has another GA nomination. I haven't looked much at changes since the last nomination (about two weeks ago), except that the edit history suggests this is still being expanded. Can the editors of the article tell me if this article is stable enough for GA? Has the issue of unpublished papers been resolved? AstroCog (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article is stable. The current edits are largely clarifications and so on, and intermittent. The edit history seems to reflect a consensus on what is acceptable as a source - NatureNews/Science/CERN's bulletin as secondary sources for physics-related issues; general news outlets/Nobel Prize winner's blogs for who said what/who will do what, arXiv as secondary/primary source only for review articles published or presented elsewhere. Ajoykt (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)