Talk:Black hole/GA1

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

Reviewer: ― A._di_M.3rd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 23:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On hold (leaning support). The content is OK, AFAICT (though I'm not a great expert in general relativity), but the level could be improved, by making it more accessible towards the begin and more technical as it proceeds. (For example, in section 1.1 the first paragraph takes for granted that the readers knows what "singular" means, then the third paragraph gives a link to mathematical singularity and briefly explains the concept; the reverse would make more sense. There are several similar issues in the article.) ― A._di_M.3rd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 23:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've rearranged/rephrased the first mention of singularity, hopefully this is better. Could you maybe point out the other places where you found this an issue? It is tremendously helpful to have a fresh pair of non-expert eyes on the article.TimothyRias (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re-read it, and the other similar issues I had noticed were in fact when something was mentioned in the "History" section but explained more clearly later (the Schwarzschild radius, the no-hair theorem, the laws of black hole mechanics); now that I think about it that's not so inappropriate, because the history section would have to become way too long otherwise. (Another idea could be moving the history section to the end, but that wouldn't look right to me.) So the article is fine as it is; if I can think of more tweaks, I'll just apply them to the article. ― A._di_M.3rd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 13:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So are there any particular issues that you want to see improved? Or did you just have no time to further look at the article? Am asking because I'm not sure if you were waiting for some type of response from me. TimothyRias (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't have time for a very careful examination, but I've skimmed it and it looks fine. ― A._di_M.3rd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be away from wikipedia for the next couple of weeks. Please, do make any tweaks you see fit. Hopefully, others will pick up the review, otherwise I will respond when I get back. TimothyRias (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been a month now, is the review going to be completed? Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno, haven't seen A di M around much.TimothyRias (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on holiday now, so I won't have much time for Wikipedia for a couple weeks. A. di M. (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. Considering the time of year it was either vacation or conference :)TimothyRias (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This has now been on hold for two months. Are there any outstanding issues? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it satisfies the good article criteria, now. A. di M. (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So does that mean you are passing the article for GA?TimothyRias (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Promoted. A. di M. (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)