Talk:Accelerating expansion of the universe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 12:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The nominator of this article does not appear to be currently active (she allowed another recent GA nomination to fail after it got to a point where it was on the point of being passed with one relatively minor fixable issue) so I will restrict my initial comments to a few general remarks on the lead. If someone wants to do the work on the article, then please make yourself known and I will do a full review. Otherwise I will fail it in a few days time.

The lead is deficient in that it does not fully reflect the content of the article. The first section is mostly about the Hubble parameter which is not mentioned. A lot of space is given in the body to models other than dark energy, but these are not even mentioned in the lead. The lead makes the claim that dark energy is the most widely accepted explanation, but this claim is does not appear in the body and is not cited anywhere. The section "Theories for the consequences to the universe" does not appear to be covered in the lead at all. SpinningSpark 12:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'd be willing to take over as a de facto nominator, but I'll be pretty busy for most of the next month. If you can give me until Thanksgiving, I may be able to do some substantial work to address any problems you bring up during the review. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll wait until you have improved the lead before continuing with the review and then we can take it from there. Not sure exactly when thanksgiving is (we don't do it in my country) but there is no rush.  As long as things are moving forward I am happy to keep the review open. SpinningSpark 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanksgiving is Thursday the 27th; I should have been more clear on that. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have some free time today, so did a cursory read of the article. I agree that it is nowhere near GA-class at the moment, and probably isn't even a B-class article as it stands. Thus, I think that the article should certainly be failed now, as taking this to GA would take a lot of effort, more than can be put in in a GA review. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that, but as the original proposer still is not taking an interest, I agree it is best to close this and submit it again at a later date. SpinningSpark 23:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)