Talk:2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly/GA2

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

Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this GAN, but please expect short breaks if my GAN (alkali metal) gets reviewed while I am reviewing this.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm sorry, but I will have to speedy fail this article; the article is very subject to edit wars which cannot be solved by semi-protection; the users are all registered. I know a lot about physics, but this article is still extremely confusing for me to understand, and the image captions are not suitable. It also needs to establish much more context, and I noticed a substantial bias against the subject of the article on the first read-through.